Warning: I will without warning or comment delete any post in this thread that does not comply with the requirements outlined below. This is intended to be a zero-noise thread.
I am looking for suggestions about the User Interface (UI) or ease-of-use suggestions that have been made for CW1 and/or CW2 but that were not implemented.
I am NOT looking for any suggestions about new unit types, new unit functions, or new modes of play (co-operative, 3D, etc.). I am simply looking to make sure that if you have or (know of) a suggestion that will make the game easier to play/use or will provide more information while playing the game, then please post it here.
The format for each and every post in this forums should simply be a one-line statement of what the improvement is and optionally a link to another thread somewhere in the forums where this has been discussed.
If you notice a duplication, you may quote that post and mention what it duplicates.
As I consolidate these suggestions, I will post them here, attribute then if apropriate and delete the post that suggested it.
If this does not work out, I will delete this entire thread.
Suggestions:
- User-defined keyboard mappings. I thought there was a more recent thread, but I can't find it quickly. (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=5485.0)
- Option to lock the window size to a specific size. Suggestion thread (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=9245.0)
- If there are units with targeting capabilities such as blasters or launchers, apply full-spread targeting. (Beta-testing thread (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=6375.0))
Option to display Frames per second. Usefull for when you might want to tweak the game for more performance, when you are having a slow game.
Option to display percentage of time usage for each frame calculation. Its 3 frames per second in CW2, so that gives each frame 0.33 seconds to calculate. If it could be possible to display how big a percentage of that time was actually used to calculate the next frame, it could be usefull for map makers to better tune their maps for less lag.
Option to speed up more For those sluggish maps where you have 20 launchers banging away at super dense creeper, it would be nice if possible, to increase speed even more then now.
Consecutive Quick Saves Per Map This has been mentioned somewhere in the forums, that instead of quick save overwriting the last save, simply add to the list of saves. Fancy for clumsy people like me who hit Ctrl-C by accident when trying to load.
I'm not 100% sure it's not in CW2 but in CW you could view an ingame graph.
Also view the description and scores ingame for custo maps. And maybe a small thing that shows YOUR high score on maps (ie story)
I think that the icons for the units/structures in the bottom menu should be on one "tab" so you wouldn't have
to change in between the three tabs that we currently have.
Quote from: SmileyCoder on January 04, 2012, 05:15:28 PM
Option to display Frames per second. Usefull for when you might want to tweak the game for more performance, when you are having a slow game.
As far as I know, you can use the "=" button to do that.
Drag-and-Select The ability to drag/draw a rectangle over an area and select units within that area would be nice.
'Paint-on' units. i.e. Click 'n' drag to build multiple units, the same way you excavate soil.
In-Game Graph. accessible at any time in CW1, only displayed at the end of CW2 - useful to check if you're actually making progress.
Keyboard Controls for everything. I play with the keyboard - it's quicker. Not having maker functions etc available on a keyboard shortcut is a pain.
Ability to select multiple units under construction. Sometimes you over extend yourself and you need to cease construction and it's time consuming to select each one individually, turn it off, then go around and turn them all back on again. The double click doesn't include weapons under construction, though the previously suggested drag-a-bounding-box-around-them may be the solution.
Ability to select multiple non weapon units. Similar to above, sometimes you want to save power by shutting down non essential power draining units (thinking of tech domes here).
Auto-Save Optional automatic save of your game every 30-60 seconds of game time. Big list of game saves, arranged chronologically, not restricted to the current slots, perhaps going back weeks - though you'd only need the top couple of dozen.
Upon death, give option to load quicksave After I die I can "just" press OK. It would be nice with an option to either select "OK", or "Load Game".
Delay next shot Decreses the firing speed of a blaster or launcher by 10 frames. (just for one shot, other solution for full spread targeting, but doesn't have full effect)
Notify of editor version on upload
Perhaps my suggestion is not good..
Q=Deactive
A=Disarm
C=Disconnect
↑
Why not use the 'Z', Instead uses 'C' ?
so that the three keys together, this is not good?
Maybe I am very clumsy.
Every time playing games, often occurs,
Pressed the wrong keystroke and destroy my all weapons. :'( :'(
This is very upset.
---------------
The corresponding number key.
---------------
Blaster
1 = Fire at Drones then Creeper
2 = Fire at Creeper then Drones
3 = Fire at Drones only
4 = Fire at Creeper only
---------------
Maker
Q=Produce 1 = 1x
A=Charge 2 = 2x
Z=Vacuum 3 = 4x
4 = Burst 10%
5 = Burst All
---------------
Repulsor
1 = short
2 = medium
3 = Long
Intuitive way, the corresponding direction.
(Right side keyboard.)
7 8 9 ↖↑↗ Q W E
4 6 = ← → (=or) A D
1 2 3 ↙↓↘ Z X C
Addiction to CJY101
W=Produce
S=Charge
X=Vacuum
for makers instead of:
Q=Produce
A=Charge
Z=Vacuum
For repulsors I would better like
WER
S F
XCV
To keep QAZ for (De)activate, (Dis)arm and (Dis)connect
Bigger charecter/tile library in the editor. I really can't draw anything. It would be nice if there was a wider selection of charecters and tiles available from the editor.
Event driven actionI think the custom levels could be expanded alot more if it was possible to tie up certain actions to events. Example could be that taking a crystal starts an emitter/gateway/field.
Packet distribution. You would not believe how many times I've wanted to prioritize where energy goes to.
I've moved a bunch of stuff out of here that in my opinion did not meet the requirement for ease of use or user interface.
Find them here]http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=9382.0]here (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=9382.0).
Rate on Difficulty/Fun factor Instead of the current thumps up/down system, give the player, after playing a map, the option to rate the difficulty and fun factor of the map, both on a scale of 1-5. I find the current thumps up/down system a bit to simplified. Many hard maps get downrated simply because they are hard for the casual player, whereas I know there are also people out there who wants to play the hard maps.
1、Ore Deposit show different
Editor Game
1-99 1-49
100-199 50-99
200-299 100-149
300-399 150-199
400-499 200-249
500-599 250-299
600-699 300-349
700-799 350-399
800-899 400-449
900-9999 450-9999
why!?
2、Editor
2-1.Blaster lack of mode selection.
2-2.Unit Setting
All weapons(Exp) lack of connect mode selection.
3、Game
Item:Gateway
Health:1/1
Phantoms:1
Drone:10 ←can add this?
Forum-to-game link system for Code maps and custom maps. Something similar in scope to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed2k_URI_scheme . That is a wiki page on the ED2K linking scheme, in which a simple hyperlink is constructed in such a way as to tell the browser it needs to hand this to an external program, like they can do with Mailto: and email clients. By having a button on the code map and custom map screens to tell the client to put such a link in the clipboard, a player then need only paste it to the forum, and any who click on on it will have CW opened for them(optional?), and taken directly to the screen immediately prior to launching the mission.
For example code missions would leave you at the selection page, but would have pre-loaded the string, and parameters for you. no more writing it down before opening CW, or tabbing back and forth to get it right if you don't have multiple monitors, or at least enough resolution for CW to be open, and not block the posted map name/settings.
well maybe a little more ways to control weapons?
such as blasters:able to make blasters target dense or thin creeper. useful after i max out range in cw2 and would be useful in cw3 ^.^
launchers AND blasters...ALL WEAPONS:able to select a region to prioritize, not just blaster blindly shooting closest creeper or launchers shooting densest creeper but letting other thinner but more dangerous creeper through.
if possible able to select priority, or just outright able to select making launchers only shoot a certain place.
those thing would be really cool.
Assuming CW3's unit balance to be fairly similar to CW1's, realize that in the vast majority of scenarios, the only reason to use a mortar instead of a blaster is the mortar's usually superior targeting scheme.
EDIT: Looking at which thread this is in, I think perhaps it would have been better posted elsewhere.
In the editor and or in the game, the ability to set the drone (or whatever replaces them) path value of a spot, like how ac is 3 times a normal cell in cw2.
A cursor would be useful, personaly I regularly loose sight of the windows cursor when playing and have to move the mouse about rapidly to " find " it.
Thanks
BoB
Quote from: mpete on May 07, 2012, 11:00:56 PM
In the editor and or in the game, the ability to set the drone (or whatever replaces them) path value of a spot, like how ac is 3 times a normal cell in cw2.
I like this. It may, without careful use, lead to nonsensical behavior, but I can see some very interesting results arising from this.
I would suggest that certain units that already exist be given a priority setting that can do things like these:
Cannons: Kill creeper when it damages nearby friendly units, Kill nearby creeper only
Mortars: Kill creeper that is near, then deep, Kill creeper that is deep, then near
Particle Beams: Kill strong spores, Kill weak spores
In CW1, collectors network lines at maximum range that allowed, mathematically speaking, 2 and a half units to to fit inbetween them.
If the collectors could allow about 3 units inbetween them without any halves of space left over and still connect to a collector that is as far away from the first collector as possible before the connection would break, I think it would save a lot of economic stress.
Quote from: 4xC on September 12, 2012, 11:21:56 PM
I would suggest that certain units that already exist be given a priority setting that can do things like these:
Cannons: Kill creeper when it damages nearby friendly units, Kill nearby creeper only
Mortars: Kill creeper that is near, then deep, Kill creeper that is deep, then near
Particle Beams: Kill strong spores, Kill weak spores
Why should mortars ever fire on closer first? They can't be effective in that role. Likewise, blasters, not being more effective on deep creeper, have no reason to focus there. They're best working in a synergy, blaster's rapid-fire working close up, and mortars going to work depleting dense buildups that would encroach on the blaster while it works. The blaster protects the mortar, and the mortar protects the blasters by using their strengths. Switching their roles would only utilize their weaknesses.
As for collectors, a diamond grid allows minimum collector range overlap, and maximum use of real estate. Other patterns work, as well, including stripes that are positioned one stripe apart from connection range, linked at the end of the stripe. That lets you pack units very tightly between rows, but not between collectors on a row.
Since real estate can be mitigated with intelligent design, I think we would lose something by reducing the rewards gained by players for intelligent use.
Quote from: lurkily on September 13, 2012, 05:45:51 AM
Quote from: 4xC on September 12, 2012, 11:21:56 PM
I would suggest that certain units that already exist be given a priority setting that can do things like these:
Cannons: Kill creeper when it damages nearby friendly units, Kill nearby creeper only
Mortars: Kill creeper that is near, then deep, Kill creeper that is deep, then near
Particle Beams: Kill strong spores, Kill weak spores
Why should mortars ever fire on closer first? They can't be effective in that role. Likewise, blasters, not being more effective on deep creeper, have no reason to focus there. They're best working in a synergy, blaster's rapid-fire working close up, and mortars going to work depleting dense buildups that would encroach on the blaster while it works. The blaster protects the mortar, and the mortar protects the blasters by using their strengths. Switching their roles would only utilize their weaknesses.
As for collectors, a diamond grid allows minimum collector range overlap, and maximum use of real estate. Other patterns work, as well, including stripes that are positioned one stripe apart from connection range, linked at the end of the stripe. That lets you pack units very tightly between rows, but not between collectors on a row.
Since real estate can be mitigated with intelligent design, I think we would lose something by reducing the rewards gained by players for intelligent use.
Point there. I was just thinking about something I read on the KC site about some issues with prioritizing targets with pulse cannons and mortars. I kind of forget what the point was, but the idea was something that had resulted from those posts.
And as for collectors, do you mean they are SUPPOSED to have enough space between them when they are connected to allow at least 2 units and a half of a unit inbetween them like in CW1? Or does "not between collectors in a row" mean that units can no longer be placed between connected collectors?
No complaints if door #1. If door #2, where did that come from? And yeah, I see what you mean about rewarding players for intelligent use. Multiple options and approaches do tend to make things like CW even better.
Quote from: 4xC on September 13, 2012, 08:38:12 AMAnd as for collectors, do you mean they are SUPPOSED to have enough space between them when they are connected to allow at least 2 units and a half of a unit inbetween them like in CW1? Or does "not between collectors in a row" mean that units can no longer be placed between connected collectors?
I don't know what the reasoning between fitting less than three full units between connectors is - but now that it works that way, I think in 'perfecting' the distance we would actually lose strategic depth.
What I meant is that if you make one vertical column of collectors, you can stretch rows out from that. Those rows can be wider appart, as long as they connect to that one column. That way you can pack two full, solid rows of units between the rows, and two between each relay. However, you still get a bit of empty space between the relays on those rows.
If you use the diamond pattern, which is more time-consuming to lay out, true, you get some coverage gaps, but you can pack units between them 100% solid.
Quote from: lurkily on September 13, 2012, 09:57:55 AM
I don't know what the reasoning between fitting less than three full units between connectors is - but now that it works that way, I think in 'perfecting' the distance we would actually lose strategic depth.
What I meant is that if you make one vertical column of collectors, you can stretch rows out from that. Those rows can be wider appart, as long as they connect to that one column. That way you can pack two full, solid rows of units between the rows, and two between each relay. However, you still get a bit of empty space between the relays on those rows.
If you use the diamond pattern, which is more time-consuming to lay out, true, you get some coverage gaps, but you can pack units between them 100% solid.
I tried to follow up on what you said, Lurkily, but I think it would help if you could post a visual design of what you are talking about.
Let me see if I can at least try to get this straight: If you build a column of collectors, there can be more distance between the collectors in each row. Why would there be relays in the collector group? And how far do collectors have to be from each other before part of the ground inbetween starts becomming not green?
And my reasoning about less than 3 units fitting inbetween collectors is derived from CW1. Collectors could have room inbetween them for 2.5 units before they would be too far to connect to each other.
And until you mentioned the potential loss of strategic depth, I wondered for a while if the collectors in CW1 were designed to have a maximun connection distance of 2.5 units on purpose. That response confirmed my suspicion. And I can accept it if it means maintaining strategic depth.
Here's a picture of it. This lets you fit two solid rows of units between collectors. My use of the word relays was me mispeaking.
If you stagger the collectors in these rows, you can eliminate coverage gaps, or alternately, space them a little wider, and live with the gaps. ( Which can help you expand your energy production faster, early.). A diamond grid offers the absolute minimum overlap between collector coverages, building your resource base fast, and the most dense unit packing possible, but has larger coverage gaps.
EDIT: Links broken. Getting new screenshots now.
Quote from: lurkily on September 13, 2012, 04:16:07 PM
Here's (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=11348.0;attach=8862)a picture of it from CW3 alpha. This lets you fit two solid rows of units between collectors. My use of the word relays was me mispeaking.
If you stagger the collectors in these rows, you can eliminate coverage gaps, or alternately, space them a little wider, and live with the gaps. ( Which can help you expand your energy production faster, early.). A diamond grid offers the absolute minimum overlap between collector coverages, building your resource base fast, and the most dense unit packing possible, but has larger coverage gaps.
Well, well, well, if it's not the picture that apparently does NOT want me to see it. When I clicked on the link you had, the page said: "An Error Has Occured, The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."
Otherwise, I believe I get the basic point of what you are saying: either tolerate with the gaps, or tolerate the lack of space.
I only hope that my attatchment to thoroughness and almost absolute clarity isn't hassling anyone here because I am beginning to think it is. One more thing, it seems to me that the most careful approach to discussions like this are the ones where someone (meaning me) has to be rather self-degrading to some degree to prevent boasting statements, self-rightousness, and vain feelings from becoming part of that someone's reputation.
When I get home, I'll re-upload images of both schemes.
Quote from: lurkily on September 13, 2012, 07:34:23 PM
When I get home, I'll re-upload images of both schemes.
WOW! That reply came faster than I expected. Much obliged, Lurkily. That is what makes me suprised that so few of us forum posters like you and me have met in person.
Sometimes though, topics of ongoing things and issues make it slightly regrettable that it would not be a safe bet for people on these forums to see each other face to face to resolve them. But I don't blame anyone or anything. There is no way to meet face to face unless one works for KC as an official employee, right?
I am not trying to arrange a face to face meeting with anyone here; I just thought it was somewhat regrettable that most of us, as I doubt, will ever know each other in person. Any live meeting I for one DO take part in with any of you will be mutually agreed upon and most likely initiated not by me.
Here. This are some of my favored CW1 patterns which will probably be just as viable in CW3 final. The bottom two rows are two spaces too far apart to link. This is more than enough room for two solid rows of units, and it lets you cover more area with fewer collectors.
The row above that is three spaces too far to link - this lets you pack three rows of units between rows of collectors, but gives you imperfect coverage.
At the top, is a diamond pattern that I mentioned before. It's a pain to set up, but when you can use it, it provides very good (though imperfect) coverage, and absolutely minimizes the overlap between the collection zones of each collector. That means when you're initially building, you're putting more green on the map with each collector you build than if you built in horizontal or vertical rows, which in turn means you can eke out a slightly faster start.
It also means you can lay down maximum unit density on the map - you can pack units and collectors 100% solid, maximizing limited real estate. It is a pain to build, though, and rough terrain messes it up easily.
As for meetings . . . I actually do not know if KC has any on-site staff beyond V. No, I haven't met with anybody here on the forums. Over at another company, where I'm more deeply involved with ongoing development of new content, I've met some people I work with, but video-chat meetings are much more common and convenient.
Lastly, my response was quick because I tend to check in during downtime at work. When it's busy, time flies. When it's not . . . well, let's just say you better have a task to occupy you.
I see. So that is what you were describingearlier. Impressive image.
So basically, the most econimically productive setup is the diamond one. Okay, I get it now. :)
By the way, if any of my responses that initially may close the matter, like this one is I presume, are what forum-veterans would probaly call "redundant", it is only because I am more comfortable if I visibly confirm that I am on the same page as you and the others.
Quote from: 4xC on September 13, 2012, 10:31:15 PMSo basically, the most econimically productive setup is the diamond one.
Not really. It DOES leave some gaps. A square grid, or rows will give you better production at the end of the day.
Diamonds just provide faster initial production because overlap between node coverage is minimized. Each node you build gives you slightly better coverage, particularly if you start building in single straight lines to start off with. That will do even more to avoid overlap in collection radii.
It isn't a big difference in your final production, but your initial setup will start up faster this way, and that can be very, very important.
Quote from: lurkily on September 13, 2012, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: 4xC on September 13, 2012, 10:31:15 PMSo basically, the most econimically productive setup is the diamond one.
Not really. It DOES leave some gaps. A square grid, or rows will give you better production at the end of the day.
Not necessarily.... (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=4666.0)
Quote from: Nemoricus on September 13, 2012, 11:20:32 PM
Quote from: lurkily on September 13, 2012, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: 4xC on September 13, 2012, 10:31:15 PMSo basically, the most econimically productive setup is the diamond one.
Not really. It DOES leave some gaps. A square grid, or rows will give you better production at the end of the day.
Not necessarily.... (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=4666.0)
Wow. Large thread that this links to. I never expected maximum energy production to involve so many math corrections or retrials.
Anyways, I am now thinking that to enhance the AC input of CW3, the mortars ought to have a priority setting where they can either launch bombs, or AC payloads like the bombers. Obviously, the strafers and bombers are the pulse cannons and mortars of the sky and the mortars could do something like the same thing the bomber do if they could launch AC as a chossable alternative.
Short-term Energy Graph - It would be great to have a small graph in the status area that shows energy consumption vs production over the last 10~ seconds or so. It would be a lot more efficient at-a-glance information than the current number schema. If this proves too difficult, a small moving average filter (3-5 seconds) on the consumption value might be really nice.
Hover to See Packet Path - If you could hover over a building to see the optimal packet path to that building it would be really nice for optimizing, especially now that relays could be "packet highways".
I had a few more but I'm at work and can't remember now. :)
Well that packet path would be intresting and some in cases even usefull. Nice little feature if V considers easy/necessary enought to implement.
What I have in mind in regards to that is around the control panel on the play screen, all Command Nodes are symbolized on the panel and the panel with them respectively symbolized with CN's on the map displays their current stats (such as energy in store, stored AC, rate of packet disposal, health, etc.) yielding some different readings if they are not part of the same network. If the CN's were part of the same network, then some of their respective stats would be the same since energy for one is shared on 1 network with multiple CN's.
Also, I was thinking that stats pertaining to the number of a certain unit produced, number of units currently under construction, etc. somewhere on the screen (maybe on the control panel) would be shown.
The problem is that in order to show all of this information at a glance, you have to put a LOT of information on the screen, and you have to show this data separately for every CN. There can't be a single meter for all energy production/use because separate networks are supported. A single graph would be a liar if your network was ever split or fragmented.
So you would require a meter (probably a bar graph) for each CN, probably current energy stored vs. max energy storage. You'd need a number indicating current and maximum energy storage. You'd need another chart and two numbers for AC. Then you would need another set of two numbers each for production and consumption, of energy and AC, for all three CN's.
So far we already have 21 numbers on the screen, and six meters, even before we consider things like decaying (a.k.a.: moving) averages.
I personally am in favor of keeping critical economic data on the map, where you are operating most often, and keeping the exact numbers, trends, and nitty-gritty details on the CN's selection tab, as most hardcore players that need that data will be paused often.
As for mousing-over to see the packet path . . . I don't think I see the point. If you need a unit to use the most efficient packet path . . . it will. If you want packets to use relay paths, they probably will. If packets aren't using relay paths, then it's your fault for laying inefficient relay paths. A feature like this may also be confusing in the case of units that require multiple resources, like bombers, which require packets at build time, but AC for reloads. With guppies, there is a chance that the shortest path for AC or for packets may not be the same.
The only time there would be a single graph for the CNs is when they are in the same network. Seperated, there would be different ones. Sure they could be seen by clicking on an individual CN to cover the non-critical numbers and stats and such, but I thought knowing them in ANY way possible would be vital.
I thought would also be a fair add-on to the stats indicator collective was the number of units already produced and the number under construction to make it easier to know what there is too much or too little of in any case.
By the way, Lurkily, I think it would help if it was specifically mentioned who you bits of info are directly going to because for a while, I didn't know who you were directly talking to at a later point in your last reply until I saw the reply by Polatrite that came right before mine.
Quote from: 4xC on September 23, 2012, 07:18:44 PMThe only time there would be a single graph for the CNs is when they are in the same network. Seperated, there would be different ones. Sure they could be seen by clicking on an individual CN to cover the non-critical numbers and stats and such, but I thought knowing them in ANY way possible would be vital.
I don't think it's a good idea for the charts to change constantly. If they join into a single graph when the network's in one piece, then two then it's split in two, and three at other times, it would not be at-a-glance information. You need to stop, re-evaluate the information, and parse it to determine which graph refers to which network.
I think if on-screen charting of network performance is displayed, there will have to be as many bars as you have CN's. If your networks are joined, fine, they're identical. In not, then you know just where the information for specific networks are (if you have any awareness of where your network assets are) without having to stop and think, "wait, is that joined graph the SAME two CN's on a network as it was the LAST time my network split?"
I would like to avoid every possible situation where a player can get comfortable with what a bar or meter means, (or any asset for that matter,) and when acting by instinct informed by that at-a-glance information, possibly be wrong. I hate it when a player's instincts betray them.
Quote from: 4xC on September 23, 2012, 07:18:44 PM
By the way, Lurkily, I think it would help if it was specifically mentioned who you bits of info are directly going to because for a while, I didn't know who you were directly talking to at a later point in your last reply until I saw the reply by Polatrite that came right before mine.
Sorry about that. In many of my post, when several posts have passed without comment, I will often speak to an idea, without addressing an individual, and let those individuals that posted opposing/agreeing arguments ring in on their own if they feel the need to.
I'll try to curtail that - it's caused confusion before.
Well, what if you had to click on a single CN if it was on a seperate network from another one to see its graph and/or stats?
Then again, perhaps you could have 3 separate graphs for each CN all the time and they would have identical readings if their corresponding CNs were on the same network?
Although, I think it would help even more if we could determine the most vital stats from the more redundant ones at this point; especially considering what you said about 21 #'s being brought to light and not covering everything there is.
for the display of status, there could be a small part of the screen that is blank, when you mouse over something in a net work the box will fill with the info from that net work, energy anti creeper production and usage
Interesting idea. I recall that units and buildings in the Starcraft series had that option; displays in the box and all.
Speaking of which, what I would like to know is if the characters of CW3 will be still prtraits, or something else when the lines are going?
Quote from: 4xC on September 24, 2012, 06:36:47 PM
Speaking of which, what I would like to know is if the characters of CW3 will be still prtraits, or something else when the lines are going?
Our current thinking is that there will be various levels - depending on the purchase price of the game. For the basic game, you will get a still portrait.
For a slightly higher premium, you will get some animated image.
At the "gold" level of the game, there will be film clips with actors playing the various roles.
At the "platinum" level, actors will come to your house and re-enact scenes as they happen.
i would take the platinum, but it would be weird letting actors into my house. so gold will do. :3
Quote from: Grauniad on September 24, 2012, 09:53:57 PM
Quote from: 4xC on September 24, 2012, 06:36:47 PM
Speaking of which, what I would like to know is if the characters of CW3 will be still prtraits, or something else when the lines are going?
Our current thinking is that there will be various levels - depending on the purchase price of the game. For the basic game, you will get a still portrait.
For a slightly higher premium, you will get some animated image.
At the "gold" level of the game, there will be film clips with actors playing the various roles.
At the "platinum" level, actors will come to your house and re-enact scenes as they happen.
Any word yet on which actors?
I mean, it'd be a laugh to get William Shatner over, and Christopher Walken'd be cool, but would you really want, say, Chuck Norris to know where you lived?
:-\
Quote from: Grauniad on September 24, 2012, 09:53:57 PM
Our current thinking is that there will be various levels - depending on the purchase price of the game. For the basic game, you will get a still portrait.
For a slightly higher premium, you will get some animated image.
At the "gold" level of the game, there will be film clips with actors playing the various roles.
At the "platinum" level, actors will come to your house and re-enact scenes as they happen.
When did levels like gold and platinum come in? Are these brainstormed marketing ideas involving versions of the game at different prices? And how can scenes be reenacted knowing the power of both sides and the lethality of the creeper?
Also, Might I suggest that for the unit hotkeys which were the numbers on top of the keyboard in 1 and 2, the hotkeys be specific letters in the names of the units like in the Starcraft series. It helped there so maybe it will help here.
Quote from: 4xC on September 24, 2012, 10:08:07 AM
Well, what if you had to click on a single CN if it was on a seperate network from another one to see its graph and/or stats?
That's pretty much what I suggested earlier.
QuoteThen again, perhaps you could have 3 separate graphs for each CN all the time and they would have identical readings if their corresponding CNs were on the same network?
That's pretty much what I described here as what would be required to put these statistics on the screen for at-a-glance info - a full set of values for the network, multiplied by three.
I think right now, critical stats are available by locating a CN or storage - at a glance you have the state of your energy resevoirs, and in a moment more, you also know if they're rising or falling at a rate that's significant.
I think further stats should be accessible by clicking any economic structure. CN, Node, relay, storage, reactor, mine, or siphon.[/quote]
Quote from: cooltv27 on September 24, 2012, 04:01:07 PM
for the display of status, there could be a small part of the screen that is blank, when you mouse over something in a net work the box will fill with the info from that net work, energy anti creeper production and usage
That would be the bottom portion of the UI you see now, which shows controls for the current unit when you select that unit. As the game progresses, I'm sure the UI will develop as well, so it may later be divided into separate panels with more separate roles, like a specific panel for showing economic or unit data separate from the unit panel . . . we'll have to wait and see.
EDIT: Demand as a new value. In CW1/2, energy spent per cycle could not show you how much energy was being requested - unless you had the energy reserves to supply every request. If you were in deficit, energy spent was simply equal to the energy you produced. I think the energy requested is a more important number. The energy demanded by your infrastructure can help you balance additional demands and expansion against your production, while the energy you spent is only intermittently useful.
First off, I would have known that what I suggested is what you did, but I lost track with all the details throughout the page and got confused as to who was saying what because there are that many statements of agreement, disagreement, or neutrality and add-ons.
Second, even if there was enough energy in store to supply the needs, in some cases weapons may need so much energy after opening fire on a sudden new large threat or engagement, that the other weapons either on other fronts or that keep enemies at bay like capped emitters in CW1 or capped structures and emitters in CW2 without having the ability to nullify them like some of the custom maps make it would lose their energy because of the new large supply surge for the weapons on the new front(s) letting loose with all they got.
This is because packets are sent to 1 unit at a time regardless of how much demand they have. I still agree that demand is helpful to know. I must add though that deficit in CW2 was also a general overview of how much request there was without specifying what demanded it.
Quote from: 4xC on September 25, 2012, 02:24:32 PMThis is because packets are sent to 1 unit at a time regardless of how much demand they have.
This was a concern in CW1 - CW2 had some limit that I can't recall, but many packets could be sent in the same instant. I believe V has posted on the blog that CW3 will have no limit. If you can supply it, and it's requested, then it's on the wire.
The problem with deficit as a meter of how badly you're in debt, is that you have to wait for it to reach a peak and stabilize, and watch to make sure it's stabilized, before you can have an accurate figure. But that time, the usage of energy on your network has often changed.
A single number, negative or positive indicating how much energy you're netting or how much more is being demanded than produced, (rather than how much is being spent than produced - not always the same thing) will be instantly informative, no matter what your current situation.
CW2's limit from my perspective is that if you have a lot of weapons active all of a sudden when dealing with a new threat or making a large engamement, the amount of packets distributed to units with constant demand like techdomes, beacons, repulsors and weapons on other fronts, etc. would get less supply along the way. This is what happens even if you DO have enough energy in storage and enough being produced by reactors all the time to never be in deficit that this is happening.
If CW3 ends up without the described limit as you suggest, I will be extremely satisfied that all fronts will be safe and all energy-sucking infrastructure units and other weapons/titans will not lose their supply of energy.
Quote from: 4xC on September 26, 2012, 12:03:07 AM
CW2's limit from my perspective is that if you have a lot of weapons active all of a sudden when dealing with a new threat or making a large engamement, the amount of packets distributed to units with constant demand like techdomes, beacons, repulsors and weapons on other fronts, etc. would get less supply along the way. This is what happens even if you DO have enough energy in storage and enough being produced by reactors all the time to never be in deficit that this is happening.
If CW3 ends up without the described limit as you suggest, I will be extremely satisfied that all fronts will be safe and all energy-sucking infrastructure units and other weapons/titans will not lose their supply of energy.
As long as you have 1 crystal energy CW2 has theoretically no limit. the limit is more based on how much energy you can send out without your computer slowing down to a crawl.
Not so, frankly. The limit I'm talking about is something that comes with 1 and 2. if you have to keep an area capped off and you suddenly have to use up a large amount of energy for a new assault or threat, the capped areas become uncapped since the capping weapons lose their supply even if you have enough energy in production and in store.
Either I don't know what you are talking about or you don't. I think it is the second.
The packet limit in CW1 is 20 without storage and 32 with storage, so yes you can have more energy than you can send out.
In CW2 the packet limit is 60 without crystal energy but is unlimited if you have at least one point in crystal energy. So if you have the production or storage you can send out over 100 energy a second.
Virgil has already commented that he has worked on efficiency in the code so these limits will not be needed.
I assume there will be some limit eventually, and map makers will end up pushing it, because that is what many of them like to do. But more likely the limit will just be what makes a users computer slow down to a crawl.
For both games, we are pretty much saying the same thing as to the limits of how many packets could be sent at a time regardless of production and storage.
EDIT: I also have to add to this as an example the discovery I just made today that unless the LS from CW2 has crystals for energy, no more than 4 dark beams can be armed, activated, and connected at the same time, and that is without anything else receiving packets.
Quote from: 4xC on September 26, 2012, 06:40:41 PM
For both games, we are pretty much saying the same thing as to the limits of how many packets could be sent at a time regardless of production and storage.
EDIT: I also have to add to this as an example the discovery I just made today that unless the LS from CW2 has crystals for energy, no more than 4 dark beams can be armed, activated, and connected at the same time, and that is without anything else receiving packets.
Why would you ever need 4 dark beams? I can't remember ever needing more than one, unless a mapmaker specifically designed a map to be too constrictive to get one beam in and out of the places it needed to go.
It made the final mission of CW2 go more quickly if you had that many.
Quote from: Nemoricus on November 02, 2012, 08:07:28 PM
It made the final mission of CW2 go more quickly if you had that many.
Ah, yes. I don't like the mechanic of direct damage to emitters . . . or packet spam. Though there are ways around packet spam, with some tweaks to packet handling.
I was mostly thinking of how they are the only weapon that can damage the Nexus.
Quote from: Nemoricus on November 03, 2012, 06:06:44 AM
I was mostly thinking of how they are the only weapon that can damage the Nexus.
I included the nexus as a class of emitter, when I said I didn't like that mechanic - sorry I wasn't clear.
I can understand why it might be useful in CW2, but I didn't like the game requiring that mechanic to progress against a nexus. Anyway, all that is slightly off-topic.
While I would like to see weapons that can justify a huge power draw in CW3 (without being an "I win" button) I would prefer not to have the packet spam from a single unit, too.
But, what kind of weapon would justify the power draw without being 'I win'? It would almost have to be horribly inefficient.
On the note of dark beams, I think something should be done with conversion bombs, you can explain not using dark beams because they're useless in open space as opposed to the tunnels you have in CW2, but there is no reason not to use conversion bombs when the technology is there.
A conversion bomber as a titan unit which will send a bomber with a single conversion bomb to the targeted area? With the bomb converting an amount that is equal to half of the total payload from a normal anti-creeper bomber, meaning it removes the same amount of creeper while costing energy instead of ore.
I don't recall the mechanism of conversion bombs ever being explained. Maybe they turn out to cause cancer? Or the creeper has developed an immunity to them?
Quote from: Shrike30 on November 04, 2012, 04:14:02 AM
I don't recall the mechanism of conversion bombs ever being explained. Maybe they turn out to cause cancer? Or the creeper has developed an immunity to them?
It was Aliana's Super powerful weapon she was working on.
No one knows what role the Conversion bomb will play in CW3 if any role whatsoever
I also strongly appeal to the idea of a titan weapon that behaves like a conversion bomb.
One thing to note is the fat that as there were experimentals in 2, it would seem almost too prudent to have them stay in 3. I prefer what we have in 3 already and what we are coming up with for it, but if logic came into play here, they would be required to stay around like it or not (I would not too much though).
Quote from: 4xC on November 04, 2012, 03:43:15 PM
One thing to note is the fat that as there were experimentals in 2, it would seem almost too prudent to have them stay in 3. I prefer what we have in 3 already and what we are coming up with for it, but if logic came into play here, they would be required to stay around like it or not (I would not too much though).
Pretty sure that's what titan-class corresponds to.
It all depends on when cw3 is set and what happened in between (if it is set after cw2). I recall virgil mentioning there won't be humans. Whatever that was supposed to mean. I wouldn't rely on logic too much on this
Back to topic:
I wish for a button that displays the firing range of all weapons.
Quote from: Ronini on November 07, 2012, 01:29:35 AM
It all depends on when cw3 is set and what happened in between (if it is set after cw2). I recall virgil mentioning there won't be humans. Whatever that was supposed to mean. I wouldn't rely on logic too much on this
"What are humans?" is a reference to Posthumanism or Transhumanism. These are the ideas that given time humans will either, like any organism according to evolutionary theory, change as a whole, or will find technological or biological ways to change themselves until they are functionally a different species.
This was a reference to the possibility that the game may be so far ahead in the future that what we consider to be "us", the descendants of Earth, may nonetheless not be something that science would recognize as homo sapien. Common concepts to us sci-fi geeks who've been raised on Aasimov's and Amazing since the 80's.
Quote from: Ronini on November 07, 2012, 01:29:35 AM
Back to topic:
I wish for a button that displays the firing range of all weapons.
Could you expand on this? What would it do? Would it show the range of all weapons on a map simultaneously - a-lathe range of SAMs in CW1?
I think I get the point of that range deal, Grauniad. When I recently watched some "Starcraft II Heart of the Swarm" battle report clips, I noticed that at some instances, units sometimes had displayed ranges for how far their attacks could reach, but some of them had ranges that went beyond their sight range. I think that firing range displayed for the Starcraft units in those clips is what we are talking about here.
The question is: would the weapon's firing range be the same as the weapon's sight range. It wasn't for some long-range units in the Starcraft series. Some examples include the Terran siege tank in siege mode and the Protoss Tempest (new unit introduced in "Starcraft II Heart of the Swarm"). In time, I will edit this post to include the link to those battle report clips to show the range indication there that I think we are looking at here.
Quote from: 4xC on November 07, 2012, 08:44:00 AM
I think I get the point of that range deal, Grauniad. When I recently watched some "Starcraft II Heart of the Swarm" battle report clips, I noticed that at some instances, units sometimes had displayed ranges for how far their attacks could reach, but some of them had ranges that went beyond their sight range. I think that firing range displayed for the Starcraft units in those clips is what we are talking about here.
The question is: would the weapon's firing range be the same as the weapon's sight range. It wasn't for some long-range units in the Starcraft series. Some examples include the Terran siege tank in siege mode and the Protoss Tempest (new unit introduced in "Starcraft II Heart of the Swarm"). In time, I will edit this post to include the link to those battle report clips to show the range indication there that I think we are looking at here.
I'm pretty sure he just wants a hotkey that shows all unit ranges so that full weapons coverage can be shown.
We don't have sight ranges because there's no FOW. Weapon's don't have a longer effective range than their firing range, either. PC's detonate where the PC targets them, (as shown in videos when attacking digitalis or runners behind creeper, they target a point, rather than detonate on the first valid target met,) so they can only fire as far as they can target. Ditto mortars. Beams never miss and never overkill, so whether their firing range is less than their effective range is not even relevant. Bertha's range is infinite. Strafers and bombers always target a point directly aligned with unit at a set distance.
Quote from: Grauniad on November 07, 2012, 06:51:07 AM
Quote from: Ronini on November 07, 2012, 01:29:35 AM
Back to topic:
I wish for a button that displays the firing range of all weapons.
Could you expand on this? What would it do? Would it show the range of all weapons on a map simultaneously - a-lathe range of SAMs in CW1?
Quote from: lurkily on November 07, 2012, 08:54:45 AM
I'm pretty sure he just wants a hotkey that shows all unit ranges so that full weapons coverage can be shown.
Bingo. I want to press a button and see the white circles around units that you usually only see when relocating them.
That might result in an overlapping white illegible mess . . . . what about a hotkey to show the outline of the unit you mouse-over? Or of all units of the type that you mouse-over?
For instance, mouse-over a pulse-cannon while holding it, you see all pulse cannon ranges.
Just use said key to show Tue collective ranges of the selected weapons. Now that we have a hot key for selecting all units of this type if we want it would save some lag to only show what we select.
Quote from: Ronini on November 07, 2012, 10:39:14 AM
Quote from: Grauniad on November 07, 2012, 06:51:07 AM
Quote from: Ronini on November 07, 2012, 01:29:35 AM
Back to topic:
I wish for a button that displays the firing range of all weapons.
Could you expand on this? What would it do? Would it show the range of all weapons on a map simultaneously - a-lathe range of SAMs in CW1?
Quote from: lurkily on November 07, 2012, 08:54:45 AM
I'm pretty sure he just wants a hotkey that shows all unit ranges so that full weapons coverage can be shown.
Bingo. I want to press a button and see the white circles around units that you usually only see when relocating them.
What I was hoping for was a statement of why this would improve game play, or solve a particular problem. Something to justify Virgil doing the work. Something that makes the game better.
So if your weapons are spread thin you can stop a crack in your defenses and adjust your weapons to protect from any creeper/digitalis slipping through (very similar to what happened with the SAMS. You could spot the hole and cover it up saving yourself from a potentially fatal spore.)
Another thing: If you could have the ranges of a type of unit displayed and they overlapped, I would suggest that they do something that they did in either Starcraft 1 or the whole series (I have yet to play "Wings of Liberty"). When you play as the protoss in the game and you select any one of your pylons, the range of influence is shown for every pylon you already built.
And every range that overlapped was a different shade/brightness, so the more pylons that were overlapping a spot, the deeper their combined ranges' color was. The ranges would also show if you were trying to place a new pylon on the map.
My point is if you can see the range of every one of a certain unit, their overlapping ranges will be clearly indicated by a deeper shade. I think CW1 has that for the SAMs.
Lurkily has already summed up the rest of what I have in mind. Other than that, maybe the weapon type ranges should appear when you try to build a new one too.
Quote from: Grauniad on November 07, 2012, 02:21:24 PMWhat I was hoping for was a statement of why this would improve game play, or solve a particular problem. Something to justify Virgil doing the work. Something that makes the game better.
Quote from: lurkily on November 07, 2012, 08:54:45 AM. . . so that full weapons coverage can be shown.
Honestly, if it is a challenge, it probably isn't influential enough to make the cut. One of those small things that may be non-challenging and may (or may not) be helpful, for things like showing the gaps in weapon coverage.
Quote from: Grauniad on November 07, 2012, 02:21:24 PM
What I was hoping for was a statement of why this would improve game play, or solve a particular problem. Something to justify Virgil doing the work. Something that makes the game better.
I cannot really elaborate on that one, since I probably won't be playing any CW3 until January.
Based on my CW1 and CW2 experience, I would like PCs to show their potential targeting range vs where they can actually fire (which is not necessarily the same due to elevation). CW2-Blasters do that. But then only one by one. I think it would be beneficial to see a group's firing range.
Quote from: Ronini on November 07, 2012, 04:21:31 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on November 07, 2012, 02:21:24 PM
What I was hoping for was a statement of why this would improve game play, or solve a particular problem. Something to justify Virgil doing the work. Something that makes the game better.
I cannot really elaborate on that one, since I probably won't be playing any CW3 until January.
Based on my CW1 and CW2 experience, I would like PCs to show their potential targeting range vs where they can actually fire (which is not necessarily the same due to elevation). CW2-Blasters do that. But then only one by one. I think it would be beneficial to see a group's firing range.
So . . . basically, white where ANY PC can fire, and red where EVERY PC in range has blocked LOS? That might . . . be deceptive. It might lead you to believe an area is adequately covered by many PC's, when in fact only one actually has LOS on a region.
That's why, in my last reply on this thread, I said that overlapping ranges would be shown in deeper shades like what I referenced in the last reply too. Basically, I already solved the problem.
And Ronini, you can elaborate on it more before it is released. Try to give ideas for what to do in CW3 before it gets sold so that they can possibly be implemented before release and it becomes too late to make any changes.
Quote from: 4xC on November 07, 2012, 05:23:33 PM
That's why, in my last reply on this thread, I said that overlapping ranges would be shown in deeper shades like what I referenced in the last reply too. Basically, I already solved the problem.
And Ronini, you can elaborate on it more before it is released. Try to give ideas for what to do in CW3 before it gets sold so that they can possibly be implemented before release and it becomes too late to make any changes.
And I'm busily doing just that. But there are somethings that you can talk about and discuss and reiterate for hours, weeks and months, and then you try it out for real, and it is completely different.
More specifically, CW3 might look a lot like CW1. But does it play the same? I don't and I won't know. Any point I make, any idea I offer might be absolutely redundant, inappropriate or just not getting it properly, because of CW3's uniqueness.
Quote from: 4xC on November 07, 2012, 05:23:33 PM
That's why, in my last reply on this thread, I said that overlapping ranges would be shown in deeper shades like what I referenced in the last reply too. Basically, I already solved the problem.
I would expect that to be an overlapping mess that obscures terrain and gives little indication which units are clear to fire and which are blocked - necessary to solve problems with firing lanes. In order to figure out which units are blocked in a tight group, you're back to individual selection. Obscuring terrain wouldn't be an issue in some applications, but here it's necessary to see terrain, so that you can effectively plan solutions to blocked firing lanes.
The problem is, while that may work decently for a few unit spread thin, when you have dense groups of units - particularly like sams, with long ranges that overlap more - you get a LOT of overlap, and more overlapped ranges turns into more opacity.
You could use color variance exclusively, eliminating opacity changes, but there are a lot of reds, (and whites/greys for that matter,) in terrain that it might blend with.
Then hopefully, the terrain colors will not be so various and far apart in colors. Or there could be numbers for each weapon that covers a certain spot. The numbers would not blot the terrain and the higher the number, the more weapons of that type would cover it. Although I would prefer the shading thing mentioned earlier.
Better yet, theshading would likely not completely blot out terrain and there would be a limited amount of shading regardless of how many more weapons covered it. That limit was implemented in Starcraft for sure, but in it, terrain was blotted out by too many pylons. Still, the bit about not completely blotting out the ground would be an upgraded version of that limit, or the colors of the terrain will be less various.
What have you done to my idea?
There is no need to make it that complicated. The application for my wish would mostly be on a very local level. The only global use would be to see what large amount of space is covered, which has pretty little use gameplay/strategy wise. Unless there will be random new emitters on a map.
On a local level it would completely suffice to show the LOF as it was done in CW2, but with one more color/shade. So you have one color (e.g. red) where a weapon could fire if it weren't blocked, one for areas that are covered by just one (e.g. 33% opaque), and one (e.g. 66% opaque) for areas covered by more than one. That should be possible without blurring too much of the terrain.
I realize just as I'm typing this, that this is not exactly what I asked for in the first place. After reflection I'd like to edit my request to having a button to display all selected PC's LOF in the manner described above.
What has be done to your idea is discussion and potential expansion. In other words, it was a good one and had a lot of possibilities. Not all of them can be accepted, but if they are written out on these posts, they can be better expanded upon. There is a lot more to implementing things into CW3 than you seem to realize.
The disscussion is about what would happen if unit ranges were shown. Everything there is has to be considered for serious implementation consideration. It really was a good idea that you had. The thing about the range field's colors is the ground had a large blend of colors that could accidentaly be mistaken for the range fields. If you want to make your request more clear yourself, explain it in greater detail to us so we know where to go and show us from your perspective why it is a good idea.
Quote from: Ronini on November 09, 2012, 05:33:29 AM
I realize just as I'm typing this, that this is not exactly what I asked for in the first place. After reflection I'd like to edit my request to having a button to display all selected PC's LOF in the manner described above.
This is the kind of evolution of a suggestion that makes sense. Ask for something, discuss it and figure out whether it will work. This might be achievable by simply presenting the LOF on selected units.
My worry is that without precision, the benefit is mitigated, because in some cases the display could mislead a player . . . and the benefit has to be worth the time to code.
Does anyone pay attention to me? I suggested only showing selected unsits ranges ages ago :<
It's hard to tackle two subtopics at the same time. Besides, what you suggest does not seem too different from what we already had for the past 2 games. Still plausible though.
Quote from: TrickyDragon on November 09, 2012, 11:02:01 AM
Does anyone pay attention to me? I suggested only showing selected unsits ranges ages ago :<
I admit I don't always read all threads with the same amount of attention. Sometimes the noise levels are just overwhelming.
So why not bring ear plugs?
Quote from: TrickyDragon on November 09, 2012, 11:02:01 AM
Does anyone pay attention to me? I suggested only showing selected unsits ranges ages ago :<
Unfortunately I haven't managed to read all posts that have been submitted before I joined these forums. If I keep pointing out stuff someone else had posted a while back, think of it as praise for your ideas :)
Quote from: 4xC on November 09, 2012, 11:06:57 AM
It's hard to tackle two subtopics at the same time. Besides, what you suggest does not seem too different from what we already had for the past 2 games. Still plausible though.
The difference to the past 2 games being, that I wish for LOF being visible for a group/all units at once, not one at a time. The three step sequence I proposed earlier should be both clear enough and simple enough for most situations.
So, let's summarize. In selecting units, all their ranges are visible.
1: If one unit has access or doesn't have access, translucent red or white, as now.
2: If two or more units have a firing line, or if two or more units have blocked fire, a bolder white or red, that does not get bolder with many overlapping ranges.
3: If any unit has line-of-fire on a cell, the indicators that units do not have line-of fire are not shown.
Honestly, it just seems to me that it isn't as informative when it can only show line of sight - or lack of - for up to two units. If I have ten units on uneven terrain, it can only show me that a region can be reached by two of them, not whether the majority are blocked. It's potentially deceptive because blocked firing lanes are hidden.
True, true.
But since I can't think of a way to show this in a clearer way that doesn't become a complete and utter mess, I settle for this:
Some information (even slightly deceptive info) is better than no information (Yes. You can be of a very different opinion on this one. A test is definitely required)
In most cases you should be perfectly fine to know wether or not more than one unit cover a certain spot. For a more detailed micro-management you'd still be stuck with selecting each unit individually. But since this would only matter in rough terrain you'll probably end up placing each unit individually anyway.
Mmh. I guess I have just lawyered myself. I'd still like to see my requested feature, but it's limited benefits probably won't warrant the effort of implementation. Consider my request withdrawn (at least from my side.)
But I've got something I'm quite excited about:
Use the star map as game menu:
- Select game type by jumping to a different sector [one for the main campaign, one for bouns maps, lots
and lots for custom maps (i.e. grouped by author, theme, difficulty, etc.]
- load games by accessing the planet on the map (see the savegame history thread for more on this)
- accessing game options, quitting the game, game stats and custom map management through clicking
your ship:
- engine room (options)
- escape pod (quit)
- something for stats (library?)
- cartography/navigation for custom map management (sectors).
- crew quarters (credits).
Quote from: lurkily on November 11, 2012, 12:11:30 PM
So, let's summarize. In selecting units, all their ranges are visible.
1: If one unit has access or doesn't have access, translucent red or white, as now.
2: If two or more units have a firing line, or if two or more units have blocked fire, a bolder white or red, that does not get bolder with many overlapping ranges.
3: If any unit has line-of-fire on a cell, the indicators that units do not have line-of fire are not shown.
Honestly, it just seems to me that it isn't as informative when it can only show line of sight - or lack of - for up to two units. If I have ten units on uneven terrain, it can only show me that a region can be reached by two of them, not whether the majority are blocked. It's potentially deceptive because blocked firing lanes are hidden.
First off, just show it for up to 3 or 4 units. Second, maybe the shades will either blend enough to tell the difference.
Better yet, either show just the effective range that can be hit at one time, only the blocked LOS at another time, or don't show the blocked LOS at all.
Quote from: 4xC on November 12, 2012, 08:40:16 AMFirst off, just show it for up to 3 or 4 units. Second, maybe the shades will either blend enough to tell the difference.
This would be fine for a hotkey. As a default for selected units, it would be a mess that threatens to blot out the map.
I would suggest a hotkey for each of the functions: effective range, and blocked LOS, but that sounds too picky for players and the last thing a player needs to be in RTS games is picky. However, if a default for selected units would blot out the whole map on CW3, why does it not blot out the map for CW1 SAMs? I get it if it does in CW3. BTW, do the Particle Beams show their ranges in the same format that the CW1 SAMs do? (all at once and everything)
Too many overlapped SAM ranges DOES blot out the map in CW1, as I seem to recall. However, for just a hotkey, that may be acceptable - it would never be active except while you were actively holding it down.
Also, it would be limited to only what you selected, further limiting the circumstances under which so many ranges would overlap.
Then perhaps that limit should pass for 3. Maybe if a group of units was selected, there could be a hotkey option for showing their ranges.
Beyond that, I must say that I think CW3's potential hotkey database would be less complicated if fewer functions were applied to the same buttons. For instance, in CW2, the numbers alone determined units to build. While it is prudent for ctrl-# to make a group, I think that recalling a group should not require a double button press like making one does.
And I think that the units to build should have hotkeys that are letters in their names like in the Starcraft series. It may spread hotkey knowledge in CW3 thinner, but I think it would be worth it as later games usually call for more depth and adaptable changes.
Quote from: 4xC on November 15, 2012, 08:30:09 AM
Then perhaps that limit should pass for 3. Maybe if a group of units was selected, there could be a hotkey option for showing their ranges.
That's pretty much exactly what I've been suggesting.
QuoteWhile it is prudent for ctrl-# to make a group, I think that recalling a group should not require a double button press like making one does.
Could use CTRL-Fkey and FKey to save and recall.
QuoteAnd I think that the units to build should have hotkeys that are letters in their names like in the Starcraft series. It may spread hotkey knowledge in CW3 thinner, but I think it would be worth it as later games usually call for more depth and adaptable changes.
If the hotkeys aren't very clear and concise, one of our largest markets - casual players - won't bother to use it. The trouble of learning it will be too much. Some people just don't want to do homework in order to have fun.
If it seemed like I was suggesting something that I thought you hadn't before, my mistake. It's tricky to keep up with everything.
And I would have stuck with CTRL-number, but there are more F key buttons than number keys.
I agree that it would be less casual to have a thinner base of hotkeys, but having them bunched up too much is not very helpful either.
Quote from: 4xC on November 15, 2012, 09:35:40 AMI agree that it would be less casual to have a thinner base of hotkeys, but having them bunched up too much is not very helpful either.
Here I disagree - I think keeping your keys in the same place is crucial. One example of this is the FPS genre, which typically uses WASD for movement, E for actions, Q for . . . other things, R for reload, F for flaslight, shift for running, tab for menus, numbers for weapons - all accessible with the four fingers of the left hand without moving them from the home keys to reach them.
That is not what I meant, Lurkily. I meant that few to no keys should have multiple functions in one button (Numbers being used to select each unit to build and the same number yielding a different unit if in another tab). And FPS does not have the same game genre as the CW3 genre. It sounds like a one-man SWAT Team Unit, first-person game whereas CW is a RTS series where you are always behind the scenes and calling the shots from a third-person perspective.
Besides, the keys you brought up are alphabetized and none of them have more than one function. In CW2, they are not alphabetically organized and depending on, for instance, the tab you were in for CW2, one hotkey does something COMPLETELY different. that is why I would like to see the units of CW3 alphabetized in some way or something. I just really do not want any key to do more than one thing and based upon what you said all along, you would not like that either.
I did not mean "bunched up" or "thinly" in a sense that different hotkeys should be spread out on the keyboard. I meant that they would probably be better organized if each key has fewer functions each and if they are alphabetically ordered.
All you really need is ten hotkeys for the two rows of units, and another pair to tab through the unit menus, and the four D's. (Destroy, disable, disarm.) Then showing/hiding digitalis growth area will probably be important, too. To me, those are the important functions.
Map scroll/zoom is usually much easier for me to control via mouse, assuming that good map control is present. (Zooming on the mouse pointer is my favorite method of controlling map scroll, but bump scrolling and grab-dragging are also preferable to keyboard control, for me.)
Hopefully, these keys should all be in reach of the left-hand home row, so you don't have to actually look at the keyboard to use them.
The reason starcraft has so many hotkeys all over the place is probably due to its use in professional tournaments - it's long been known as a tournampent game where APM is direly crucial, so it's important for every possible action to be hotkeyed. That means simpler, intuitive hotkey systems probably aren't comprehensive enough for their needs.
Quote from: 4xC on November 15, 2012, 05:28:32 PM
That is not what I meant, Lurkily. I meant that few to no keys should have multiple functions in one button (Numbers being used to select each unit to build and the same number yielding a different unit if in another tab).
I'm not sure it's possible to do this. We've got three CN's to select, one titan, seven noncombat structures, and seven combat structures revealed to date. And we know there are probably going to be more that we haven't seen. That's nearly twenty keys. I'd rather switch tabs and have hotkeys mean something else, and be clearer in their meaning, than to have to train myself to remember more than seventeen keys just for structures. In the latter case, I would probably only ever use a couple of those hotkeys - and I typically use hotkeys rather heavily.
QuoteAnd FPS does not have the same game genre as the CW3 genre.
Genre is irrelevant. It's an example of what hotkeys are for. Hotkeys are for instant, precise response. If they don't provide you with that, they aren't fulfilling their purpose - you might as well stick with the gui, and require the player to pause if they want to respond to a crisis quickly.
I'm not sure what you mean by multi-function keys. I agree that CTRL-and SHIFT- modifiers shouldn't be required, if at all possible.
QuoteBesides, the keys you brought up are alphabetized
What?
When I said they were alphabetized, I meant they were alphabetically organized.
So maybe hotkeys with multiple function each do have some perks if the ideals of each function is closely related to each other. If each multi-purpose hotkey is for something organized and similar-acting like those unit numbers for what to build, I guess it works. When I try to build something with a hotkey, I think of a hotkey symbol that makes me think about it closely and CW1 made it harder to do that by having numbers keep going for every category of unit and weapon (6,7,8,9 etc.). Since CW2 had similar number functions, I did not imagine how helpful the tab change was for use of number hotkeys until now.
And I want the hotkeys to be clear in meaning to by the way. And the only time I ever see CTRL modifier work out is when making a group or (if the units were in grouped portraits like in the whole Starcraft series) de-selecting induvidual units.
P.S. multi-function keys are keys that do more than one thing.
Quote from: 4xC on November 16, 2012, 02:42:25 PM
When I said they were alphabetized, I meant they were alphabetically organized.
But . . . they're not. The FPS keys are organized based on what's under the left-hand home row. Reload and flashlight, by happy coincidence, can be both in the home row AND indicated by the first initial of the function, but most of the rest are chosen by convenience to the home row alone.
I didn't like CW2's hotkeys much either. Ideally, the buttons should be laid out the same way the build icons in the menu are, and the higher numbers got way too far from the home row. If you can't reach a hotkey from the home row, you have to look at the keyboard, and to my thinking, once you do that, you may as well just go click things.
I still agree with you on modifier keys.
Will there be an overlay that shows possible cn locations?
Not sure what you mean. It was my impression that they were freely positioned, like odin city. So, basically, anyplace there's room for one.
Are you asking for an overlay to clearly show where there's enough room to set down?
Yes. If you select a cn to land, there should be an overlay that shows places the cn would fit. I was mainly thinking about large maps, where the map creator wants to limit the options for starting places.
Interesting . . . I'll think about how that could fit into the UI . . . maybe a green overlay whenever you select a unit, to show the places you can set it down.
Would it be possible to have more space to type your name when you submit a score for beating a map because when i type my name in there is not enough space to fit the whole thing in.
hey i was wondering if i could get close up images of the technology i could point out minor flaws in it
Quote from: tornado on December 16, 2012, 12:06:56 PM
hey i was wondering if i could get close up images of the technology i could point out minor flaws in it
If you mean graphics, you could thrust the one who makes the graphics.
If you mean the tech tree, nothing has been published about that yet.
I'd like to have color coding for the CRPL scripts. so that commands (i.e. actions the crpl will perform, e.g. move, setcreeper, etc.), arguments and script internal functions (if, do, etc.) each get a different color.
I was thinking about this today thanks to the arrival of CPRL towers...
towers that weigh multiple factors about the world (amount of creeper, direction it is coming in, how soon creeper will hit the shores, etc) as well as about the user's infrastructure (say, he has a few collectors needing to be built, along with some weapons).
The bot discriminates between how soon the creeper arrives and whether it is viable to focus resources on weapons or infrastructure.
Another would be to channel packet flow (say, you have a group of blasters holding position, and you want to have the bots putting weapons ahead of infrastructure). It basically takes EVERY packet (maybe prioritizes a single command node or something, or maybe takes a quarter of packets made) and the tower makes them into whatever packet is needed (construction, ammo, totem, etc.) and channels them directly to what is most important.
Once CW3 goes up and I buy it i'll try scripting a few bots for interesting effects :D It spiked my interest in CW3 dramatically.
About the tech tree: what is the deal with a CW3 tech tree? If there is one of those, what order do the current units have to be built in in order to make other kinds. Or by tech tree, does it refer to how units are only usable in some levels and unlocked later on through the campaign?
Quote from: 4xC on December 22, 2012, 04:46:01 PM
About the tech tree: what is the deal with a CW3 tech tree? If there is one of those, what order do the current units have to be built in in order to make other kinds. Or by tech tree, does it refer to how units are only usable in some levels and unlocked later on through the campaign?
The tech tree is a concept swirling around the forums on the potential of adding a tech tree into the game. It has been considered for single missions and the entire campaign. Currently Virgil has no information announced on whether or not any tech tree could be implemented.
EDIT: See the Upgrade System Ideas post.
Could we have an in-game clock. Perhaps with a little beeper or something, small and in the corners but there so you don't willfully spend too much time on CW3. This way it helps improve people's health and gives them a way to check the time without alt-tabbing.
Also has anyone ever considered 'themes' of the UI. Perhaps in the settings, this way you can customize the colors and display to what you prefer. Could be compatible with color blind folks as well.
I would find a small clock in the corner extremly helpful.
Quote from: Mr.H on December 23, 2012, 09:16:44 AM
Could we have an in-game clock. Perhaps with a little beeper or something, small and in the corners but there so you don't willfully spend too much time on CW3. This way it helps improve people's health and gives them a way to check the time without alt-tabbing.
Also has anyone ever considered 'themes' of the UI. Perhaps in the settings, this way you can customize the colors and display to what you prefer. Could be compatible with color blind folks as well.
I'd like to see both of these.
Quote from: Mr.H on December 23, 2012, 09:16:44 AM
Could we have an in-game clock. Perhaps with a little beeper or something, small and in the corners but there so you don't willfully spend too much time on CW3. This way it helps improve people's health and gives them a way to check the time without alt-tabbing.
Quote from: Chawe800 on December 23, 2012, 11:03:01 AM
I would find a small clock in the corner extremly helpful.
As a matter of curiosity, do you know of any games that displays clocks/alarms as part of their User Interface? For one, I'd have thought it would distract from the in-game environment, also not be universally used and only of (limited) use when people play in full-screen and cannot use alternate displays on their desktop.
World of Warcraft is a great example. It hides the clock right under the mini-map which is great because it reminds players and doesn't get into the way. I do have to admit World Of Warcraft has a ton of AI interface. Adding it within the other buttons in the corner would be great ;D
I prefer actual alarm countdowns to be out-of-the-way - something the player can seek if they want it - and have a more visceral indicator that they're running out of time - things that ratchet the tension up. Speed up the music, set off air-raid sirens, shade the edges of the screen redder as time runs out - things like that.
Many PoP games have time-trial segments of some sort - sections of a map where you somehow die if you don't complete the precise and challenging acrobatics required in the limited time available, but a timer would just be distracting and panicky.
PoP:The Warrior Within chased you with a massive monster. You had to escape to safety. If you fell behind, you could see tentacles licking at the edge of the screen, reaching for the Prince. (PoP is a third-person game franchise.)
In PoP: the Two Thrones, the prince had a dark side that consumed the sands of time that gave him his abilities. But if he ran dry of sand in that form, he would die. The health meter was integrated with the display of your inventory of sand, so your 'time until death' was in the same place you were looking for your health all along.
A discussion on alarms would be interesting but that's not what we're discussing. We're talking about a small clock in the AI Interface that would remove the need to tab out of CW to check the time.
Alarms would be a cool concept to incorperate though.
I was thinking more in terms of spore countdowns, I admit. I was replying specifically to Grauniad's question of other games using timers/alarms. Your suggestion that things be kept unobtrusive played into my picking out examples of games that use visceral means to indicate time constraints.
Honestly, I don't often need a real-time clock . . . I have a watch, and I keep one-time alarms on my phone if there is actually a time deadline that I have to make.
I'm not sure if anyone actually did or did not mention but 3D would be kind of cool for in game play.
Gameplay is already 3-dimensional, having width, height, and depth. Display being 3D might be a nifty gimmick, but I'm not sure it's worth the time investment it would require to do the code.
Only if CW was much more distinguished world-wide than it is now would it seem possible to have that enhanced 3D bit if you ask me.
I think it's less dependent on recognition than on the needs of the game, the design, and the dev. For instance, CW does not render in ways that are particularly friendly to modern video cards - 3D might not help that. In addition, it might confuse the player's viewpoint. Most games have discrete units, but CW has blobby amorphous oceans in which depth and surface height must be measurable at a glance.
I think these things have probably impacted the choice to render in 2D more than mere recognition. I think V has enough cred to make his games to look like whatever he wants and be able to market it.