This topic is for discussion of map #505: Tactical Error 2 (http://knucklecracker.com/creeperworld2/viewmaps.php?mapid=505)
(http://knucklecracker.com/creeperworld2/thumb.php?id=505) (http://knucklecracker.com/creeperworld2/viewmaps.php?mapid=505)
Author: Fisherck (http://knucklecracker.com/creeperworld2/viewmaps.php?author=Fisherck)
Desc:
Another mistake made by another Commander, and again, it's your job to fix it...
I tried to tone this one down a bit from my last one, so hopefully it is more reachable for the majority of players ;)
(http://s8.postimage.org/fmezt1ibp/image.png) (http://postimage.org/)
Here are some pictures showing how I beat the map and some tips: ;)
Spoiler
Important things to do:
.Grab the silver crystal! And then use it to build reactors and a few tech domes (the increase range upgrade will be invaluable).
.The fire at drones only button on the blaster is handy at times.
.The use of makers is limited on this map (because of the left gravity), but they can help make it less likely that drones will target the top if your main assualt is there. Drones will go out of their way to avoid creeper.
.Repulsers help a lot to push the creeper out of the way when the field switches direction (so you can build shields), and since the field rotation is relitively fast, that can help a lot.
(http://s8.postimage.org/4pobsye4l/image.png) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s8.postimage.org/n6iqjru2t/image.png) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s8.postimage.org/bjymin6rp/image.png) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s8.postimage.org/qtyhpu29x/image.png) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s8.postimage.org/w6nc3yq6d/image.png) (http://postimage.org/)
(http://s8.postimage.org/4luicp8n9/image.png) (http://postimage.org/)
image hosting (http://postimage.org/)
This one was tougher for me (or at least longer) than the first one. Both are eminently playable and fun to beat on.
I took the low road to beat this, but will probably see a "Spoiler" showing how to attack from the top left somehow.
Good stuff and thanks for the fun.
dbit
Quote from: DethbyIT on November 28, 2011, 06:46:27 AM
This one was tougher for me (or at least longer) than the first one. Both are eminently playable and fun to beat on.
I took the low road to beat this, but will probably see a "Spoiler" showing how to attack from the top left somehow.
Good stuff and thanks for the fun.
dbit
Glad you liked it. What makes both those maps hard are the fields. I tried to make it easier, but that's hard when you get a few thousand K of creeper flung at you ;).
I added a spoiler to the first post showing how I beat it. I moved up on both sides, but used the top opening for my main assult.
"Top left" it is!
Let me repair a few computers and I'll get back on it - darn work keeps getting in the way of fun.
dbit
Lol, I find the comment by Admiral Abraxis to be rather amusing. Thinking about it, any commander who did not take into account that emphasis early in the campaign, on decay-able terrain, has a good chance of endin up in this rather nasty situation.
So this series (assuming you make more) is a set of maps that you made mistakes on, and wanted to see if you could continue successfully? I think it is rather clever, and both maps are quite good.
Quote from: Ranakastrasz on December 26, 2011, 08:13:17 PM
Lol, I find the comment by Admiral Abraxis to be rather amusing. Thinking about it, any commander who did not take into account that emphasis early in the campaign, on decay-able terrain, has a good chance of endin up in this rather nasty situation.
So this series (assuming you make more) is a set of maps that you made mistakes on, and wanted to see if you could continue successfully? I think it is rather clever, and both maps are quite good.
I'm pretty sure this one was intentionally a bad strategy - the first one might have been an actual mistake, but I can't imagine someone wanting to try to attack a chamber like this with only blasters and no launchers, not even looking at all the build space that isn't used yet (especially using build space next to decaying terrain before using the safe spots). This also can't be directly from a code map because code maps never have fast decayable terrain (look at the bottom of the map).
Quote from: Kithros on December 27, 2011, 08:57:05 AM
I'm pretty sure this one was intentionally a bad strategy - the first one might have been an actual mistake, but I can't imagine someone wanting to try to attack a chamber like this with only blasters and no launchers, not even looking at all the build space that isn't used yet (especially using build space next to decaying terrain before using the safe spots). This also can't be directly from a code map because code maps never have fast decayable terrain (look at the bottom of the map).
Your right on both accounts. My first map was an actual mistake that I made, the second was "rigged". :) This one is a code map that I made some minor modifications to.
Quote from: Ranakastrasz on December 26, 2011, 08:13:17 PM
Lol, I find the comment by Admiral Abraxis to be rather amusing. Thinking about it, any commander who did not take into account that emphasis early in the campaign, on decay-able terrain, has a good chance of endin up in this rather nasty situation.
So this series (assuming you make more) is a set of maps that you made mistakes on, and wanted to see if you could continue successfully? I think it is rather clever, and both maps are quite good.
These maps were more a test for me, to see how much people would like them. And judging from the up/down ratio of these maps (this one has about 3 downs for every one up) I wasn't planning on making anymore. But if some people do like it I might leave the option open if I have a passing whim to make another... :)
@Fisherck -
That whole 'down/up' thing is a real two-edged sword.
I think we have a lot of players who only give a map a couple of minutes for solving before they move on down the road (and leave a Thumbs Down).
I make it a point to be really honest with the map makers. If a game is fun, I tell them so - and usually why.
If I don't like a map, I tend to just let it go. Maybe their next one will be more fun.
dbit
Personally I enjoy any map thats challenging, and not a slog-feast. My own maps don't exactly have the best up/down ratio either, but I've still gotten alot of good feedback on it as well. I think people who like the game alot will go and comment. The people who downrate tough maps are perhaps the more casual players.
I only downrate games that I find illogical (odd fields) or to be a massive slogfeast.
Quote from: SmileyCoder on December 27, 2011, 06:10:15 PM
Personally I enjoy any map thats challenging, and not a slog-feast. My own maps don't exactly have the best up/down ratio either, but I've still gotten alot of good feedback on it as well. I think people who like the game alot will go and comment. The people who downrate tough maps are perhaps the more casual players.
I only downrate games that I find illogical (odd fields) or to be a massive slogfeast.
Yeah, pretty much any difficult map gets down-rated a lot by the thumbs up/down system. On the other hand it seems like a lot of the casual players seem to like the huge slogs (within reason of course) - I don't really get why, but maybe because they feel as though it's challenging even though it isn't really. They're just long and a lot of people tend to consider length and difficulty to be the same thing (and the actual hard maps they give thumbs down because they can't beat them).
As far as this map goes, it isn't too difficult as long as you rebuild shields whenever the fields turn the other way, but there are a huge number of players who do not use shields as much as they should.
Yeah, I think being able to add the difficulty to a map would definitely help this kind of problem...