Having played both CW1 and 2 for a while now, I have noticed that a fundamental and rather important difference between the two is that in the former you are much more restricted in ways of energy, weapon movement and connections.
In a strategy game some restriction is necessary, that is why in my opinion (That I'm sure is shared by some others here) many CW2 maps are too straight forward and need fields and gimmicks to make them hard.
Just compare building a CW1 map with a CW2 map, by the first you can just place some terrain emitters and totems and voilà, you've got yourself a decent map. But clearly (as seen in the map queue) this isn't the case for CW2.
Why is that?
Well, clearly the restrictions that are given by CW1 cause this, and make the average CW1 map better than his CW2 counterpart.
And why is that?
By eliminating connections, it forces the player to think carefully; by eliminating weapon movements, it forces the player to plan his strategy better; by eliminating a lot of energy options, it allows the player to rush, turtle or carefully manage everything. It is clear that CW1 is better than his successor in these parts, in fact it's so clear I won't go further on this.
But most important, how is that possible?
Well all those positive restrictions go out from the terrain, which offers much more possibilities in CW1. You couldn't go wherever the creeper went, you couldn't build everywhere, and were limited by the connection range of your collectors.
So by changing the terrain to 9 subcells (like the Creeper) you would give the CW2 map maker a lot of possibilities. Finally harder maps could be created without excessive use of creeper, fields or drones. Finally anyone could make a decent CW2 map without having to think about not giving the player too much space but still allowing the Creeper to flow. Finally you would be forced to find different strategies for every map, e.g. going around to kill the Creeper while still having to hold it off, more energy management since reactors can't be builded anywhere and "bigger" maps (i.e. you have to go around, while the Creeper must not) without needing to go all the way down and let gravity make the job easy for you..
So in short: Adding subcells will make this game a lot more fun, strategy and tactics; why set a step back from CW1 in that aspect.
Or at least remember this, if implementing it would cause a lot of work, when building CW3, it will make the game even better.
Yes, this would probably be the most useful improvement possible for CW2.
I suggested something similar (see here (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=6708.msg39656#msg39656) for beta-members and here (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=6860.msg42505#msg42505) for others).
Currently most CW2 maps just seem too straight forward and it's pretty difficult to keep them both hard and interesting at the same time.
Like Sqaz said this is mainly because you can send your packets and units anywhere the Creeper flows. In CW1 both the terrain and your network restricted the player, so planning and building this network required much more strategy than it does in CW2.
Also the various terrain levels offered much more versatility in Creeper flow, but that's probably something that can't be changed anymore. What can be changed is the used of terrain subcells, which would allow the Creeper to flow to area's that can't be reached by units and/or packets, so I really hope something like this will be added in the future.
Despite the possibility of using fields CW2 seems to have a little less depth than CW1 and this is probably the main reason less (good) maps are being submitted and also why players don't seem to stick around as long as they did with CW1, which allowed a map to be hard in a subtle way, instead of requiring very dense Creeper.
Dark cells will help too (in combination with solid terrain) (one line of dark cells and you have to take a different route)
Yes, that could be a solution that's easier to implement, but wouldn't look that nice. Players may wonder why certain cells don't lit up, so these permanent dark cells would need to have a different color.
The last thing you want to do however is combine them with solid terrain, because then the Creeper still can't flow there! Decayable terrain would probably be used most often in combination with this solution.
CCCCCCCCCCCC
SSSDDDSSSTTT
XXXCCCXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXLXX
Creeper, Dark cell, Solid terrain, free space (X), Ls, diggable Terrain
Creeper will attack you through D but when you want to attack the creeper you have to go through T.
The solid terrain ALSO blocks you, and in combination with dark cells...
Ah, I thought you meant solid terrain IN the dark cells, because these of course can contain various types of terrain as well.
Quote from: Sqaz on November 06, 2011, 06:18:28 AM
Adding subcells will make this game a lot more fun, strategy and tactics; why set a step back from CW1 in that aspect.
My point of view, having thrashed hell out of CW1 &2:
Yes, CW2 is definitely 'simpler' in that it has a significantly less complex (read 'blockier') terrain than CW1, which leads to more basic maps, which leads to more basic gameplay - despite the addition of more and new units, fields, taller maps etc.
However, CW2 is a totally different game and good map makers are getting around the 'limitations' of the blocky terrain. I for one am happy with the use of a chunky landscape because CW1 used to drive me insane, trying to find a clear space to put down a unit, or finding out that because I'd located the first unit in the wrong place, I couldn't get an optimal fit in the land available - with the blocky CW2 land, you
know you'll always be able to fit in units.
CW1&2's strengths are their 'simplicity'.
I love discussion like this - it goes all sorts of interesting places!
TLDR all posts.
Couldn't this be done with something like 'translucent cells', where packets and creeper could go but units could not. Or using this technique added to the game, you could paint translucent subcells over a whole cell making creeper able to go through it.
I like this idea a lot. But the main problem I can see in implementing this is how the LS is to remove said subcells. Not a problem with indestructable ones; but for all the others...
Im thinking it would remove all subcells at that full cell.
I agree with Cavemaniac. I love making creeper world 2 maps much more than creeper world 1, just because the blockyness of the terrain allows for easier planning and simpler unit placement. Also, using creeper like in the map "Late for Dinner, Better Move Fast" will allow you to accomplish all the functionality of subcells, without updating the game.
Quote from: Dalas on December 27, 2011, 05:28:04 PM
I agree with Cavemaniac. I love making creeper world 2 maps much more than creeper world 1, just because the blockyness of the terrain allows for easier planning and simpler unit placement. Also, using creeper like in the map "Late for Dinner, Better Move Fast" will allow you to accomplish all the functionality of subcells, without updating the game.
Except for cases where you would want blasters to shoot through a window too small to pass through. The blaster would target the nearest creeper instead.
Well, if it's easily implemented it would be great - but depending on how everything is coded it could get complicated. For instance - do you know that blasters will be able to target creeper properly if there are only subcells in the way rather than entire cells blocking it? Does the way terrain data is stored even allow for terrain to have different properties on different subcells?
EDIT: Repulsor beams would almost definitely get screwed up by subcell spaces.
Quote from: Kithros on December 27, 2011, 10:00:38 PM
Well, if it's easily implemented it would be great - but depending on how everything is coded it could get complicated. For instance - do you know that blasters will be able to target creeper properly if there are only subcells in the way rather than entire cells blocking it? Does the way terrain data is stored even allow for terrain to have different properties on different subcells?
EDIT: Repulsor beams would almost definitely get screwed up by subcell spaces.
Also, packet and drone pathing would be 9 times more complicated.
Quote from: Ebon Heart on December 28, 2011, 03:04:09 AM
Quote from: Kithros on December 27, 2011, 10:00:38 PM
Well, if it's easily implemented it would be great - but depending on how everything is coded it could get complicated. For instance - do you know that blasters will be able to target creeper properly if there are only subcells in the way rather than entire cells blocking it? Does the way terrain data is stored even allow for terrain to have different properties on different subcells?
EDIT: Repulsor beams would almost definitely get screwed up by subcell spaces.
Also, packet and drone pathing would be 9 times more complicated.
Drone pathing wouldn't it can only pass though a large block.
Isn't there a packet limit(ignoring crystals on this one) because the packets cause major lag? Complicating that by nine times either means an insane limitation in packet limit or extreme lagg. SO perhaps the packets should just travel through the centre of it, if the terrain block has 3 subcells or more that allow the packet to cross from one side to the other then it will just use the same pathing as before, but travel through the centre of the block(even if there is terrain), this will break immersion but at least we don't have lagg. But overall I don't think this idea will be implemented, or work smoothly.
Quote from: Mr.H on December 28, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
Isn't there a packet limit(ignoring crystals on this one) because the packets cause major lag? Complicating that by nine times either means an insane limitation in packet limit or extreme lagg. SO perhaps the packets should just travel through the centre of it, if the terrain block has 3 subcells or more that allow the packet to cross from one side to the other then it will just use the same pathing as before, but travel through the centre of the block(even if there is terrain), this will break immersion but at least we don't have lagg. But overall I don't think this idea will be implemented, or work smoothly.
Hmm.
Don't packets already work on a 3x3 subcell system?
I'm sure I've seen packets hit creeper, be destroyed, then the new batch get rerouted by just a tad to avoid the creeper as it's height (level) increases.
That and I've seen packets 'squeezing' along the roof of a cavern almost completely flooded with creeper.
Or I could just be imagining it - I'm currently suffering from sleep deprivation. Anybody want an affectionate but noisy cat?
Quote from: Cavemaniac on December 29, 2011, 02:01:48 PM
Quote from: Mr.H on December 28, 2011, 07:59:51 PM
Isn't there a packet limit(ignoring crystals on this one) because the packets cause major lag? Complicating that by nine times either means an insane limitation in packet limit or extreme lagg. SO perhaps the packets should just travel through the centre of it, if the terrain block has 3 subcells or more that allow the packet to cross from one side to the other then it will just use the same pathing as before, but travel through the centre of the block(even if there is terrain), this will break immersion but at least we don't have lagg. But overall I don't think this idea will be implemented, or work smoothly.
Hmm.
Don't packets already work on a 3x3 subcell system?
I'm sure I've seen packets hit creeper, be destroyed, then the new batch get rerouted by just a tad to avoid the creeper as it's height (level) increases.
That and I've seen packets 'squeezing' along the roof of a cavern almost completely flooded with creeper.
Or I could just be imagining it - I'm currently suffering from sleep deprivation. Anybody want an affectionate but noisy cat?
Packets will only move through the centre of every cell - for instance, if you had a cell with a single subcell in the middle of it, packets will not be able to move through it. Terrain on a subcell level (if it were possible hypothetically) would probably result in the same thing - but in most maps the effect creeper has on it will be negligible unless there are awkward pin fields involved, whereas terrain could get very confusing in some situations.
While there would be complications, I think this is the best thing that could happen (from my standpoint) to Creeper World 2
Quote from: CobraKill on December 29, 2011, 03:28:51 PM
While there would be complications, I think this is the best thing that could happen (from my standpoint) to Creeper World 2
The most important issue - what if terrain simply does not store the data to be specific to certain subcells? There isn't really any way around that without recoding everything to do with terrain, nevermind all kinds of issues that could confuse new players with weird pathing issues and firing through walls and stuff like that (admittedly that could potentially be just left as is, but would be very sloppy).