Knuckle Cracker

Creeper World 3 => Upcoming Release Chatter => Topic started by: knucracker on November 01, 2012, 11:56:17 AM

Title: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: knucracker on November 01, 2012, 11:56:17 AM
I've locked the old thread Creeper World 3 Suggestions Initiative (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=10478.0).  It was running on into a large number of pages and had a healthy collection of off topic posts.  There was plenty of good stuff in there, but it was getting diluted towards the end.  So, on to a fresh topic to help people refocus and consolidate their thoughts.

For those that want to help, keep these ideals in mind:

1: Be succinct.  As Pascal said, "I made this letter very long, because I did not have the time to make it shorter."  Fewer words can carry greater meaning than many....

2: Pretend you are me whenever you make a post.  Imagine what 'I' would think when I read your post.  Is it on topic and helpful?  Is it direct and well thought through?

3: Don't take things personally.  All ideas are valid, as are all professional critiques of ideas.  It is ok to like or dislike ideas and to post the ideas and to post opinions of ideas... so long as it is all civil.  If I see anything that strays into people fighting or posturing, it 'damages my calm' (look it up)... and that's not cool.

4: People make mistakes, and I am their leader.  Expect anyone to not understand or to err in what they say or how they respond.  Look upon us with pity, not scorn.  Before you get ill at us, recall Hanlon's razor....

5: Enjoy yourself and remember others are here to do the same. 

Keep these things in mind, and you'll make me happy.  Now, onward to CW3 suggestions....

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on November 01, 2012, 02:33:48 PM
The Creeper could have a pro-mechanical ally with it.

Can we start off the second list with the 5 ideas Mr. H was planning to add.

As for that Main Idea list; it will be in the second post.(Sorry for double posting)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on November 01, 2012, 02:46:28 PM
Creeper World Main Idea List:

-Battle against something that is unstoppable
-All you can do is run from it
-Undo everything humanity has ever made
-Purity of Nothingness
-Energy Management
-The last survivors
-Top down view
-Emitters that create an organic(like) mass to destroy you
-Meterors of Creeper from the sky
-The Loki deteriorated into Creeper
-Doubt
-Sacrifice

Creeper World 2 Main Idea List:
-The Academy to destroy Creeper
-The ability to go and eliminate the Creeper.
-The Creeper possesses another race
-AI drones that specifically target you
-Take the fight to asteroids
-Go underground to destroy the Creeper
-Dig to make space for infrastructure.
-The creeper can come directly at you
-The nexus returns stronger then ever.
-Anti-Creeper
-Hope

Plz PM me if you want to add to the list. (I didn't know If i should have made a separate topic for this)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 01, 2012, 04:15:20 PM
Anyway, the on-topic point I was trying to make . . .

I meant that I would like the threat and behavior of your enemies to resemble organic behavior.  As in, I would like the threat to be growing, changing, something that spreads and encroaches, grows and develops, a threat that has stages of development, and changes as the game goes on.

Creeper would represent the childhood of the threat, and I view digitalis as another stage in that development, along with spores, which also take time to present a threat.  Different stages in the 'life-cycle' of the threat against you, if you'll permit me to use another organic metaphor.

Throughout the series, outside of a few bits of cutscene text, I've never felt that the creeper or the drones or the spores hated me.  They just did what they did, and what they did happened to be diametrically opposed to my goals.  EDIT: Not to mention my survival.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 01, 2012, 05:46:09 PM
Well, now that the series is so far ahead, perhaps it is time for the enemies of CW3 to be more hateful towards players and have a more vengeful aura around them. Now would probably be a good time for the creeper to show a desire for revenge against their enemies. I would reference this to something(s) that have to do with revenge, but I do not know if that would still be considered "on-topic".
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: knucracker on November 01, 2012, 07:33:00 PM
From a lore perspective I can say that in game 3 the enemies (most of them anyway) are still going to be unintentionally threatening to you.  The Creeper was never by itself intelligent, it was just a tool used by the Loki and their agents.  The Styglek drones moved towards a more serious and directed threat, but even they were something I thought of more in a defensive role for the Styglek and their activities than as something designed to go after Humans.  Think of it this way, when your local government decides to build a new school it isn't 'declaring war on earthworms'.  Though, it may appear that way from the earthworms' perspective.

As for Digitalis, it won't have a mind with the strategic intent of destroying the player either.  It can do just that, but only because its the side effect of what it is otherwise doing.  Other things that wander about on the Digitalis also don't care about people... but they can be harmful to them.

Underlying all of the Creeper World games, though, is a bigger intent and a bigger story.  The Creeper and why its mechanics operate they way they do relate to this bigger story... but you'll have to wait for game 3 to learn what that is all about.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: mopa42 on November 01, 2012, 07:39:40 PM
Partial idea for a weapon with a interesting cost:
When it fires, this weapon instantly drains all stored energy in all units connected to it (it has no storage capacity so you would need at least one connected unit). This energy damages nearby creeper / shoves it back / vaporizes it or does something else cool.

The interesting aspect isn't so much what the weapon would do but instead the fact that firing it affects all other connected units. Mortars would lose all their ammo, nullifiers would be reset to zero, storage/capacitors would be drained, and any packets would disappear. This downside is counteracted by the fact that the weapon could become very powerful if you have a large network. Of course, the effect wouldn't be as efficient as just letting ordinary weapons damage the creeper, but that's the price you pay to get [insert cool weapon effect here].
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Lord_Farin on November 02, 2012, 10:58:22 AM
Together with sophisticated use of disabling/destroying relays/collectors (to deconnect network) or guppies (instant unload), that is an interesting concept you pose. It'd be critical of course that firing this weapon is a manual operation (otherwise managing it is too unwieldy).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 02, 2012, 11:15:00 AM
In regards to that weapon you, mopa42, describe I think would be called the "Leech" does sound very interesting. I like that it does more work when your network has more energy collection. And the effects on connected friendlies look like really good compensations.

Although, if it could cast a field that vaporizes all nearby creeper, or makes all frontline weapons like PC's and Mortars emit this field, I think we will have a potentially devastating Titan on our hands. Currently, I think it is primarly good for buying players time to keep creeper at bay while they improve their infrastructure for large frontal assaults.

Or maybe there should be units like "Moles/Gophers " that act in conjunction with a single Leech that emanate the vaporization fields. Whatever does emit the Vaporization fields. The Moles or Gophers (M/G until further decided) would maybe be able to travel underground and emit the field where it resurfaces. To nullify enemy structures with this tactic, defense units would have to already be built like shields and guppies because the only type of energy packets I think would be drained by active Leeches would be construction packets.

Nullifiers never stay on the field for long terms like everything else since it destroys itself along with nearby enemy structures. And if ithe Leech does drain other weapons, then we would probably use it when there is only one frontline or threatened area where creeper is a problem to you. Maybe it should just take all energy in storage pods while other weapons would continue to obtain their required energy to function if there are other enemy lines to counter. I still give your idea 2 thumbs up.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on November 02, 2012, 11:47:58 AM
How about this Leech could target an area an vaporize all creeper and digitalis in this area. This could also be used as another weapon type. It could require more energy to vaporize more creeper in the area.

This could be diverse for clearing a small wide path across a thin amount of creeper. Or if charged a lot could skin off quite a few layers of creeper in the area. You should be able to change how many layers of creeper it peels off and where it fires.

This could also work as a different other weapon (works better that way now that I think about it.)
I call it the Vaporizer
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 02, 2012, 04:33:25 PM
By "other weapon" do you mean a Weapon, Titan, Orbital or something else? Come to think of it, since a Vaporizer targets an area, maybe it should be the Mothership's super Orbital weapon or just another Orbital.

I can see why more energy should be used to take out more creeper at a time. I still think that maybe CW3 should have something that allows user to buy time to build infrastructures the way that the Leech does, but the Vaporizer looks just as good.

Then again, Berthas already have infinite range and take out a lot of creeper and could soon be able to harm digitalis. Besides the damage ability, is there anything else that makes the Vaporizer stand out? What it can do that is helpful and important that nothing else can?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on November 02, 2012, 07:38:00 PM
It's great for clearing off large plains of really thin creeper allowing a rush push up on a plateau to secure it.

Let's say there is a small plateau of creeper that has been covered by a thin veil. With the Vaporizer you can remove this large thin area of creeper land a few guppies and set up a small outpost. Sure you can send Strafers to shoot away at the creeper and Bombers to provide a little cover. But this thing is great because of it's large amount of customization. You can determine the area it needs to vaporize and how many levels of creeper to skin off and it will charge with an appropriate amount of Energy and fire.

Or how about some creeper made it up the backside of your base. Since it's thin Just zap a fairly large thin amount to hold back the creeper a little until you can defend.

I think it would work best as an Orbital.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 02, 2012, 07:54:41 PM
Leech could be interesting . . . but just damaging creeper isn't gonna cut it.  I mean, you already have nearby assets with ammo storage, or it wouldn't function.  If it's more powerful than those, what's the point?  They're not even guns, now, they're just batteries.

Therefore, it can't be terribly expensive, but must be very energy-effective in its destruction.  If it's not energy-effective, then you might as well just fire the ammo from the pulse cannon.  Its energy efficiency will justify its expense in the long run, but many players will balk at the complexity of using it, and just use the assets they already have fielded instead.

It would have to have a function other than just damaging creeper.  Problematically it also makes packet sourcing from many diverse sources potentially quite common and widespread.  The new code is powerful enough to handle more of that, but it still has to be a potential source of burden, particularly when in addition to guppying, you have your very weapons calling packets from random other weapons.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 04, 2012, 03:57:34 PM
The Leech does not stop weapon packets. It just stops construction packets. And M/G's would emit the vaporization field. (M/G's being either Moles or Gophers)

I figured it would help buy time to have an effective economy. And if it did stop weapons (which I do not think it would), there should be only 1 front line.

Maybe since I had M/G's involed in this, the Leech should actually be called the "Leech Host" and the M/G's the Leeches themselves.

EDIT: Problem with calling them that is shown on this link: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/media/videos/?view#/heart-of-the-swarm-units
Look at 3:10; it says it all. (I presume this reference is not off topic?)

One question I have is whether or not shields have an effect on Runners (which, as they come from nests, I think need a more organic name like "wasps".)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on November 05, 2012, 07:08:41 AM
If there was any discussion regarding the following in one of the other suggestion-threads I sincerely apologise.

since CW3 offers different types of terrain (as being represented in different colours, grey, brown, green,..), I propose a number of properties different kinds of terrain could have. I have posted some of this in the weekly blogs some time ago, but I think here might be a better place for exchanging thoughts on this.

1. Energy Collection : different terrain could provide collectors with different energy output. Somewhere in the region of 0.8 to 1.2 times a collector's normal energy output. A collector might be able to generate more/less energy on a flat, smooth surface than on rough, rocky (bouldery) ground or grass. I already see a problem with calculating a given collector's output when there is different terrain in his area of coverage. But then this probably won't occur anyway, since different terrain types are set apart by different terrain heights so far, and collecting range is limited to the level the collector is build on.

2. Terraforming : different energy/time requirements for terps to alter a given terrain. It is easier to dig through soft, loose earth than through hard, dense rock. This would also point to un-terraform-able terrain. A question here is wether terps should receive a "change terrain type" option. Here, it doesn't matter wether this can be done directly or by removing ground and creating it again. My favoured solution for this would be to give terps just one single type of ground they can create. (with a multiplicator of 1 for all properties)

3. Creeper spread/dissolving rate : Creeper can surely spread faster on a smooth than on a rough surface. It also might die a little quicker/slower.

4. Sloping terrain :  developing from the wind feature, this could be "wind" only applying to the given terrain that should appear as sloped.

5. harmful terrain : terrain where you cannot build structures, because they are damaged by the ground. If you land units on this type of ground they are either (preferably) damaged over time or destroyed instantly.

Rather than assigning each type (colour/texture) of ground we've seen so far a specific set of these attributes, combining and perhaps randomizing these properties (especially 1-3) would truly create different worlds to play on.

Edit: Just saw in the other thread, that Hindos had posted some of these, already. At least according to the list in the very first post.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 06, 2012, 05:35:16 PM
Quote from: 4xC on November 04, 2012, 03:57:34 PM
The Leech does not stop weapon packets. It just stops construction packets. And M/G's would emit the vaporization field. (M/G's being either Moles or Gophers)

I figured it would help buy time to have an effective economy. And if it did stop weapons (which I do not think it would), there should be only 1 front line.
So in other words, in order to buy time to build up your economy, you have to steal energy directed to construction of your economy, and in order to use it as a weapon, you have to start a construction project for it to work?

Regardless of how effective it might be, it sounds frustrating to use.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 06, 2012, 05:58:16 PM
I think I mis-worded it. I must have been thinking it would but time to stock up on energy or something. While I said maybe it could steal storage enrgy before while weapons get their requirement, the point that I am trying to make is based on buying time to get a stronger assault force, store more energy, or have a better economy while keeping the creeper at bay simultaneously. It would not doo all of that. I got the idea confused in my head as I got it out, but I envisioned some kind of stalemate weapon/titan that holds the creeper back so you can improve your forces or economy in some way.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 06, 2012, 06:27:22 PM
Quote from: Ronini on November 05, 2012, 07:08:41 AMIf there was any discussion regarding the following in one of the other suggestion-threads I sincerely apologise.
I've actually seen most all of these in one place or another.  But it's impressive to see a new poster bringing all of these together right off the bat.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on November 09, 2012, 11:38:45 AM
1)

Long version:
Spoiler
Personally I would love to see some improvements made in asthetics and atmosphere via the addition of 'Nature'. Planets could vary, (perhaps some gas planets) and some could be in the 'goldilocks' zone. Thus a larger array of default terrain types and maybe some intresting new features. Nature would be mostly asthetical, but if that doesn't go down your alley then perhaps using it as a temporal barrier against creeper, or something to protect(like a capsule in CW2). I just feel the maps look a tad bit empty in their current state and terrain manipulation has it's limitations ;) . Examples of Nature are trees or alien plant-life, perhaps certain simple creatures without AI.


[close]
Short Version:
Asthetics & Atmosphere via introduction of planet types(terrestial, gaseous, etc) and Nature;which can be protected or used as a strategic shield against the creeper.

2)

Long Version
Spoiler
As a titan class weapon I believe that a weapon which sends some form of disruptive pulse which temporarily distorts the default movement of the creeper in a certain radius would be quite intresting. It would not harm the creeper or destroy any of it but throw it around(configurable via it's unit control panel) to various ends(close packing for mortars, seperate creeper masses, etc. This would certainly not be random ofcourse an a overlay UI would show the effect of the weapon. Particularily good at cutting off digitalis lines.
[close]

Short Version: Disruptor Pulser that configurably manipulates creeper movement for a short time, to cut off parts, or concentrate at one point. Particularily effective against fighting Digitalis.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Lord_Farin on November 09, 2012, 02:33:30 PM
Idea 1 is nice. When I say nice, I mean that I'd like to see it implemented. Good aesthetics are quite important; I'd rather not have them so confusing that it negatively influences tactical gameplay (compare e.g. UT3 to UT2k4).

Idea 2 concerns a titan class weapon (whether that's good or bad I leave to the reader).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 09, 2012, 03:06:44 PM
#2 is somthing like a 'suck field' or an attractor?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 09, 2012, 04:22:57 PM
The first one I like because the map design, while already looking good, really does need some more beef. I appreciate that the custom maps of the other 2 games take care of this for them, but asthetic background additions isolated to just the future CW3 custom maps like they were for the past 2 does not seem to be enough.

I know that those maps on those clips we saw were test maps, but I would really like to see campaign levels with open space in it to show the lasting effects of the creeper's destructive potential. There was for the CW2 training academy and bonus levels, but if CW3's campaign levels have this, I will be really interested.

The second one sounds like a unit mostly copied off of the Styglek's manipulation, but I like the idea of manipulating creeper actions with a new unit nonetheless. How exactly would it help against digitalis if it manipulates creeper?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on November 10, 2012, 08:40:03 AM
#2 is a manipulation field yes, it can attract, disipate, and converge the creeper mass for a short burst of time(good to move your units in, or for mor effective mortar use). I tend to enjoy support units. Also remember styglek manipulation doesn't exist in CW3, or at least yet.


3) Snippey
Long Version:
Spoiler
As the name implies this is a sniper unit. Their range depends on the terrain height they are placed and are great backline units to backup your main force. At maximum terrain height they can shoot anywhere on a super large map. They can not fire over terrain levels higher then the one they are standing on. Sniper turrets can fire small Anti-Creeper Packets, and are adapt at countering enemy units and serving as a depositor of anti-creep wherever it may be necessary. Susceptible to spores, long reload time, can be countered by having a large array of them. If you have multiple ones selected you can initiate salvo fire, or constant barrage(continuity depends on amount of Snippeys)
[close]

Short Version:
Sniper unit whoms range/effectiveness depends on terrain height it is based on. Cannot fire over higher terrain. Can shoot small Anti-Creeper packets, adapted at taking out units or irritating creeper. Long reload time, spore susceptible, configurable barrage, behind-the-lines unit.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 10, 2012, 10:35:33 AM
Quote from: Mr.H on November 10, 2012, 08:40:03 AM
#2 is a manipulation field yes, it can attract, disipate, and converge the creeper mass for a short burst of time(good to move your units in, or for mor effective mortar use). I tend to enjoy support units. Also remember styglek manipulation doesn't exist in CW3, or at least yet.
Dissipate - repel, like a shield?  What's the difference between attract and converge?

Quote3) SnippeyLong Version:
As the name implies this is a sniper unit.
Not sure what the snipey adds . . . bombers provide long-range AC delivery, strafers more typical long-range munitions, and discrete units so far (runners) rebuild too fast for a typical sniper unit (long-ranged, slow-firing) to suppress them well.  Strafers also appear to be highly effective against them already.

Honestly, I'd really rather see terrain-based range mods on all units.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on November 11, 2012, 07:00:22 AM
Perhaps the snippey could terraform at long distances?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 11, 2012, 10:33:53 AM
Quote from: Mr.H on November 11, 2012, 07:00:22 AM
Perhaps the snippey could terraform at long distances?
Is it really supposed to be snippey?  A pronunciation of 'snippy' sounds like a nagging girlfriend.

Not sure Terraforming is something easy to balance at long ranges . . . a flight of strafers can expose land for bare moments easily, which is all you need to eke land up bit by bit until they break creeper cover.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on November 11, 2012, 11:49:11 AM
I agree. While raising terrain from far away large enough for a mortar + guppy sounds like an efficient strategy, I don't think I'd use nor like it very much. Seems too easy, somehow. But then I don't like the general idea of terraforming very much, either.
Depending on probable range upgrades, I also don't think another mid/long-ranged unit is really required, as strafers, bombers and Berthas should be more than you'll ever really need, as it is.
I do welcome the range ~ terrain height proposal, though.

BTW: Do bombers only drop anti-creeper or will there be an option for them deploying explosive payloads (similar to CW1 drones)?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: TrickyDragon on November 11, 2012, 11:53:27 AM
from previous pictures and videos, it seems like creeper only at this moment (anticreeper that is)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 12, 2012, 08:46:23 AM
You know, if there is something I am considering wanting to see in CW3, it is stuff left behind by ancient space-faring aliens that have an effewct on the CW3 battlefield. Whatevere they would leave behind would be found only on that specific map and stay there so it would be either a major ecomony booster, a weapon more powerful than the titans or orbitals, something to boost the weapons and othe offensive units, or something else that does something I cannot name right now.

Maybe even make it possible for the stuff left behind to enable warping to other maps that are too far to reach otherwise without clearing out other worlds first. I just think there should be more of an influence from ancients of some sort that have a really big, noticable helping hand for the player.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 12, 2012, 09:04:45 AM
Hasn't V mentioned artifacts found on maps on the blog?  And the gems have been demoed in their own video.

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on November 12, 2012, 09:36:25 AM
Quote from: lurkily on November 12, 2012, 09:04:45 AM
Hasn't V mentioned artifacts found on maps on the blog?  And the gems have been demoed in their own video.
Have they? I could use a pointer to where I can find this particular video, please.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 12, 2012, 10:59:17 AM
Nothing was in a video, unless you count the crystals, which were in "Roma Victor".  Because of the presence of crystals, that could easily be the blog post with comments on other possible map objects of benefit.

I only have a sense of what I understand from the posts that have been put up, really.  It's easy for me to assemble information that's been posted in my head, but difficult for me to identify the source.  Welcome to the organized disorder that is Lurkily.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 12, 2012, 06:20:36 PM
So far, I have not sensed anything in the way of major artifacts that distinguish themselves from the other 2 games that help players in any way. And the crystals don't seem close enough to being originated by alien influence.

They just seem to be an outer space version of historical jewels being conformed to shiny, colorful batteries providing energy to bases. There are no mystical effects for one thing.

And it would be much easier to see alien influence if, by chance, maps had weapons built into them. (they would be totally different from everything players can build)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: cooltv27 on November 12, 2012, 06:49:05 PM
I think artifacts were implied by virgil in the video "the march" at 0:50 "..cleansed of the creeper or met other objectives.." possibly collect artifacts
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 12, 2012, 07:41:36 PM
Quote from: 4xC on November 12, 2012, 06:20:36 PMThey just seem to be an outer space version of historical jewels being conformed to shiny, colorful batteries providing energy to bases. There are no mystical effects for one thing.
Who said such artifacts had to be alien?  They could be from other factions of human, or even your own technologies that you haven't been able to sccess due to strife, or broken supply lines.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 13, 2012, 12:16:18 PM
They do not have to be alien, but I think it would look better if they were. I would like to see more of the infinite mystery of the plot lore.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on November 14, 2012, 03:01:51 PM
What I'd really like to see (this is fairly off-topic) is Virgil making some Tactical error maps where you have control of a situational collapse and you must act quick to save yourself akin to Fisherck's 2 Tactical error maps. That would really help people practice thier CW skills while trying out a unique and challenging mission.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 14, 2012, 03:14:24 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on November 14, 2012, 03:01:51 PM
What I'd really like to see (this is fairly off-topic) is Virgil making some Tactical error maps where you have control of a situational collapse and you must act quick to save yourself akin to Fisherck's 2 Tactical error maps. That would really help people practice thier CW skills while trying out a unique and challenging mission.
So basically, maps that start out with an already-controlled situation, but with one flaw that leads to a rapid and deteriorating collapse for you to try and control?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 15, 2012, 08:21:06 AM
Depending on how frequently that happens and how troublesome each climax of that theme is, CW3 with this could be a hard row to hoe so to speak. It could be worth it though. I would like to see something dramatic and unexpected happen partway through a few levels, especially the campaign.

What I don't get is how this could be off the topic as this is where suggestions for CW3 go and this seems like a CW3 suggestion.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on November 22, 2012, 11:25:04 AM
:D My sniper suggestion was sort of added.

Anyway another suggestion:

Follicor Charger

Long Version:
Spoiler
I've always wondered why units are completly oblivious to any sort of damage when moving. I bring you the mini-spore launcher , unlike spores it does not hit player structures on the ground and has a poor range; however it can target any units in the air which come in range and damage them with varied spore charges. If it's a single unit it will often be able to destroy it in one hit, however in multiple units it shoots more( smaller) spores which do less damage but hit all of them. Thus a bulk force could sustain crossing it without serious damage. The mini-spore launcher is named Follicor, after the ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/follicle ), which is a small cavity near the hair; and a synoynm of 'spore'. The 'Charger' comes from it's feature of slowly building up energy, influenced by nearby digitalis/creeper levels(without creeper/digitalis it is stagnant in production- but can still fire reserves), and takes approximatley one minute to charge to full capacity when surrounded by creeper of highest level(capable of destroying airborne unit in one hit). One does not have to worry about moving units aroudn your base and the danger it brings, this unit makes guppy usage particularily more difficult and disallows any unit movement within it's range but makes tactical movement or overwhelming a viable tactic to counter it.
[close]

Short: A spore launching creeper structure which can hit airborne units(ships, guppies, moving blasters, etc.) with spores. It charges up creeper levels to create these spores, using up negligible creeper around it, and at full capacity can destroy a unit in one hit. When faced with multiple units the spores split into smaller pieces and do less damage to one unit but the same net damage.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Lord_Farin on November 22, 2012, 12:59:03 PM
Good suggestion. If this is not implemented, I strongly vote for other adversaries making the strafers and bombers (in general, air units) less OP.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on November 22, 2012, 04:44:40 PM
Sounds like a good upgrade for the AETs. The details would be subject to balancing, though. Also, I haven't quite made up my mind, wether this should be an additional enemy structure, an additional feature of AETs, or a replacement.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 22, 2012, 04:51:07 PM
There are other things to consider.  For instance, players have almost no control over aircraft.  It's straight-out, and straight-back.  This might not be sufficient for many players' needs, if regions of airspace suddenly posed a threat.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on November 22, 2012, 05:17:33 PM
True. Adding a waypoint system could be a neat addition. It would be literally working around the whole idea of making aircraft less OP.
On the other hand, the limitations of controlling units' flightpaths would make the proposed AA cannon a very effective way to limit access to quite big parts of a map without having AETs all over the place. Mind, I see nothing wrong with having AETs all over the place. Then again, AETs would exclude all air attacks, whereas an AA gun would just make them harder (i.e. more costly) rather than impossible.
As a consequence, players would need to up their base-planning skills. It would also enable such tactical musings as "I need to secure this peninsula, so I can build an airbase there, so I can strike the pool of creeper beyond that ridge...".
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 22, 2012, 05:28:01 PM
I think AEZ's are actually more restrictive to aircraft than flak would be.  Flak or AA guns/missiles/spores/whatever would damage, or even destroy your aircraft, but leave you the opportunity to try and cross their range, or dart in and out.  The range at which your aircraft are ineffective is much smaller than the range of the guns themselves.

The AEZ's as they exist right now seem to be a total ban on aircraft effectiveness in a region.  No fuzzy borders, no darting in or out or slipping a few shots through.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 26, 2012, 11:41:26 AM
An idea I have which was inspred by the Starcraft series: either air units cannot fly in the areas of AETs at all, or the fields emitted by the AETs slowly harm air units that pass through them.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 26, 2012, 01:04:30 PM
Quote from: 4xC on November 26, 2012, 11:41:26 AMAn idea I have which was inspred by the Starcraft series: either air units cannot fly in the areas of AETs at all, or the fields emitted by the AETs slowly harm air units that pass through them.
Quote from: lurkily on November 22, 2012, 04:51:07 PMThere are other things to consider.  For instance, players have almost no control over aircraft.  It's straight-out, and straight-back.  This might not be sufficient for many players' needs, if regions of airspace suddenly posed a threat.
This is also true if you could not transit across specific areas.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 26, 2012, 04:59:20 PM
Apologies. I cannot keep up with everything here so I had no clue I had suggested something that was taken already.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on November 26, 2012, 05:20:44 PM
No need to apologise. What you suggested was new (at least to me). Lurkily's original reply was about an idea involving a creeper anti-air tower (that shoots creeper at your planes). Similar to your suggestion, but not the same, really. His objection (I take it as such, please correct me if it isn't) does apply here, too.

Additionally, I don't really see what damage to air units should do. Let's face it, all it would do (in addition to ETs' shield function), is increase energy requirements for a short moment. At least from my experience with CW1's drones, by the time I have them, I'm well off concerning energy, so there won't be much harm done, really.

Unless, of course, AETs (or the creeper aa guns) affect all units, so they prevent units to be moved through and into their exclusion field. They don't in the "Roma Victor" video, though, and they shouldn't.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 26, 2012, 05:32:00 PM
Thank you, Ro, you have it right.

What I would like to see, is for AEZ's to prevent the -placement- of any attack orders intersecting an AEZ.  Aircraft would path around AEZ's to their attack point or path.  It's okay if aircraft, in swinging around to align on the path to their destination, overlap an AEZ for a couple of seconds, as long as they TRY to path around it, and to not lay down any fire here.

That might give AEZ's more of a sense of being a barrier - they might even pretend to shoot at aircraft, to explain why they stay away.  It would obviate any need for player-designated pathfinding, too.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 26, 2012, 05:44:02 PM
AETs affect only air units as it is. Ground units could be positioned in their fields. What I have in mind is that any air unit that tries to fly through the AET's respective field is that the longer they are in the field, the more danage the field itself slowly inflicts upon them. As I said before, this idea was inspired by the Starcraft series, but in particular, let's note this:

In Brood War, a Zerg level does not let you build air attack units (or let you transport ground forces in overlords) because a field of some sort emanates in the level and stops flyers from maneuvering according to the storyline. And in Wings of Liberty, a campaign level has field generators of some kind that slowly damage Terran units as long as they are inside them. They did slow, soft, but sure damage to battlecruisers because they have a lot of hit points equalling a lot of health.

The point is that the fields from AETs should either make it impossible for air units to fly through them, or they should damage air units very slowly but surely. If they stop them from flying inside, I would add what Lurkily just said about flying around them.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on November 26, 2012, 06:06:25 PM
Just to clarify:
By "air units" do you mean just aircraft (strafers and bombers) or any moveable unit (including shields, CNs and so on)?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 26, 2012, 06:46:35 PM
I honestly don't think damage is necessary . . . also, it wouldn't really work even with automatic pathfinding that I suggested.  Air units would still take losses just because their imperfect paths swept over the edge of an AEZ.

Taking losses because of player carelessness is okay, but this is the game's imperfections causing losses.  That kind of imperfection is okay when only exclusion from an area is involved, but not when it threatens unit loss.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on November 27, 2012, 11:34:35 AM
With Air Units I meant movable structures (like snipers or blasters) as well as aircraft. This way you can't just place them without any resistance wherever you are. The anti-aircraft zones are swell but too simple and you can only take certain shapes, but the anti-air turrets (Follicor Charger) are a more realistic and balanced manner of countering this major human advantage.

Enhancment of Air unit capabilities and control with waypoints and such is a great idea and would definetly make them more intresting.

Also as for 'carlessness' perhaps aircraft will give off a warning if they are being damaged. Also it encourages better strategic thinking to make sure you don't pass over any danger-zones, which is good. The wide sweeps and discrepancies over the designed path could be countered with the waypoint system, allowing more precise movement patterns.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on November 27, 2012, 12:57:39 PM
Having thought about your Follicor Charger for quite some time, now, I really like the idea. I'm not so sure about the charging bit, though. But a vulnerability for units in transition would be a welcome challenge.

Quote from: Mr.H on November 27, 2012, 11:34:35 AM
Enhancment of Air unit capabilities and control with waypoints and such is a great idea and would definetly make them more intresting.
If you think about it, this shouldn't be that hard to implement. I'd also go as far as limiting this waypoint system to the actual movement of units, who move only in straight lines (i.e. not aircraft, who can go in arcs). So a Follicor Charger would destroy or at least damage units moving across its targetting range and  block aircraft that move above it, by destroying them. Destroying (damaging does not really make sense) meaning that they simply respawn at their base, as soon as it is fully charged again.
So you'd be forced to plan your aircraft base placement carefully or try to outnumber the Follicor Charger, but could move around it with your ground units.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on November 28, 2012, 02:04:52 PM
Perhaps if aircraft are destroyed, the building that creates them uses up some build packets (1/4 of initial cost of pad) to replace it over a period of time. Would give some militrary loss to losing airships, which is more balanced.

Maybe just call it a follicor, or 'folly' , since we all despise long names. Charging is to make it balanced, perhaps it doesn't use up creeper but requires digitalis to work. But the fine details are up to virgilw ;)

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 28, 2012, 02:18:44 PM
Quote from: Mr.H on November 28, 2012, 02:04:52 PM
Perhaps if aircraft are destroyed, the building that creates them uses up some build packets (1/4 of initial cost of pad) to replace it over a period of time. Would give some militrary loss to losing airships, which is more balanced.
Honestly, I think the entire point of CW is to create an enemy capable of resisting or even reversing your advance, without causing unit losses.  Everything I'm seeing seems to provide evidence of that - runners in particular, which unlike drones, aren't lethal. Creeper and digitalis only cause unit loss if you make mistakes, and spores only if you neglect your countermeasures until too late.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on November 29, 2012, 09:25:57 AM
Be that as it may, now is the time for the enemy side to evolve from just causing delays and reversals. If the series stays like this, I think it will be somewhat too conservative.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on November 29, 2012, 10:19:20 AM
I do believe the creeper should be given more difficulty, we have too many tools at our disposal to thrawt their progress and too little to hamper our conquest. Perhaps an intelligent dynamic force that draws together the forces of the Creeper in a manner designed to coordinate towards weaknesses in our frontier. These could vary from rush tactics to biding it's time and then releasing everything in one tidal wave.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 29, 2012, 11:07:15 AM
Quote from: 4xC on November 29, 2012, 09:25:57 AM
Be that as it may, now is the time for the enemy side to evolve from just causing delays and reversals. If the series stays like this, I think it will be somewhat too conservative.
That might make an interesting game, but it's up to Virgil as to whether that's the game he intends to make.  Based on that I've seen so far, it seems counter to his intentions thus far.

I hesitate to suggest that his direction might not have been the right one - after all, that philosophy seems to be present in CW1 - it seems to be one of the cornerstones the series is built on.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: cooltv27 on November 30, 2012, 09:04:52 AM
one thing that would make the game harder is that spores smart target, ya its been suggested before but I have an idea how, just before launch the spore checks each building, then go toward the one where it hits the least amount of particle beam range, if there are more then 1 then it just randomly picks between them
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 30, 2012, 09:20:46 AM
That actually grants you control over spores.  Make sure all buildings have at least one coverage, then put one exposed collector out there, that has many beams between it and the spore tower.  (Yet also outside of range of the collector itself.  Then you force the spores to attack an exposed target by running a gauntlet.

Honestly, there is such a thing as too much intelligence.  It's much harder to code something that has motive, but can make mistakes, then it is to code a mathematically perfect aggressor, that never fires a shot more than necessary to take your last point of health, and never misses.  It would be simple to code spores so that every spore passed through the minimum amount of fire from beams, and so that every spore path entered beam range at the same instant, to maximize beam's drain on your economy and to try to overwhelm your defenses while striking through weak corridors of fire.  That's just math and logic.  Code is good with that.

I'm not sure that's best for a casual gamer's gameplay, though.

Remember, V gets more player complaints about the games being hard, than about them being easy, according to one of his dev blog posts.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on November 30, 2012, 12:33:41 PM
I don't know if that is just my impression, but I'm actually regularly flabbergasted that a spore/phantom manages to find a hole in my defense. Those beasty little things.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: cooltv27 on November 30, 2012, 06:00:51 PM
Quote from: lurkily on November 30, 2012, 09:20:46 AM
That actually grants you control over spores.  Make sure all buildings have at least one coverage, then put one exposed collector out there, that has many beams between it and the spore tower.  (Yet also outside of range of the collector itself.  Then you force the spores to attack an exposed target by running a gauntlet.
I meant that it checks how many pieces of beam range it has to go through total, so if you did that it would probably not attack that collector
then maybe it has a customizable chance to have it be smart (like you can enter 20% chance or 99% chance
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 30, 2012, 08:33:50 PM
I think I would rather do something less calculated.  I'd rather see behavior like a threat map - spore towers remembering the areas in which they've come under fire, and preferring targets that lead their fire through other places.  This would lead them to constantly probe different parts of your defense, as it they were looking for holes or lightly protected lanes through your defenses.

Basic behavior: Spores add 'threat' to their own mental image of the map in an area around themselves as they come under fire.  'Threat' reduces itself by a small amount over time, but the threat generated by a downed spore should take ten or twenty launch cycles to fade.

That way they will remember where your defenses are strong.  If you expand to new territory, they will repeatedly test this new territory until the threat generated by your vigorous defense is established, and begins to equal the rest of the threat on the map.  As threat fades, they will begin to re-test old regions of your base.  If you are in the habit of moving beams forward, creating a 'line' that advances, you may end up seeing spores slip through gaps, as threat in poorly defended regions fades.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: BGMFH on November 30, 2012, 09:10:30 PM
I really like the threat map idea, but can we add a value/vulnerability map as well?

Id est, the spore will occasionally decide to hit a valuable area even if it is heavily protected, just to make sure those defenses are still there, and havent been moved.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 30, 2012, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: BGMFH on November 30, 2012, 09:10:30 PM
I really like the threat map idea, but can we add a value/vulnerability map as well?

Id est, the spore will occasionally decide to hit a valuable area even if it is heavily protected, just to make sure those defenses are still there, and havent been moved.
They will do that already.

As they attack away from heavily defended areas, 'threat' fades slowly.  Thus over time, they will return to that area and test it again.  'threat' will be added again, so probes there will be infrequent - unless you move beams out of the area.  Then as threat buildup is less severe in spores passing through that area, they might test it more.

EDIT: I'd rather not see too much intelligence added.  Many things in the creeper universe seem to respond to your presence, without having a directed intent to kill you.  Creeper and runners and digi and spores don't actually seem to hate you - they just act because you're there. 

They're like mosquitoes and scorpions and bears.  Mosquitoes carrying malaria don't hate you, they're just hungry.  Scorpions don't hate you, it's just that it's so warm in your shoe.  Bears don't hate you, it's just that your marshmallows are so yummy!  By entering their range, you may invite their ravages, but not because they want you to die.  That's kind of the sense I get from CW3 so far.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on November 30, 2012, 11:29:45 PM
But the creeper does hate you. It seeks to eliminate anything for the purity of nothingness. That's why I personally believe Creeper weapons should be more aggressive and intent on destroying you. I'm not here to argue with you but I personally believe creeper should be more aggressive and try to destroy you. But that's Virgil's decision on which way to swing in CW3.

About the threat readings could we consider the potential to use this idea with runners as well? That would seem effective but it would require different coding to make sure the Runners don't ignore your snipers while they are moving.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on November 30, 2012, 11:49:58 PM
The reason I hesitate to suggest malicious intent is because . . . well, canon, continuity . . . tradition.  Malice and forethought and hate on the part of these enemies could work and could make an excellent game, but would it still be Creeper World?

A game designer starts not with mechanics or with the awesome idea, but with the experience he wants to indulge the player in.  I think that what we're talking about changing is something fundamental to the atmosphere and the feeling of the game. 

I'm trying to aim my suggestions in directions that don't pull away from what I see as being tied to the essential experience . . .

Of course, no two people experience the same events the same way, so all of those reasons are entirely subjective.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on December 01, 2012, 12:08:15 AM
At this point, I think that a lot of suggestions going on around here may be misguiding the original ideals of the CW series. For one thing, I understand that the majority of players are casual and not as RTS-oriented as the rest of us. And I also take it that not many casual players contribute ideas and communication online whereas compared to hard-core gamers with long histories on here.

What I mean to say is that not enough input seems to be coming from the majority of players, and I don't think that the backbone of our input is as valuable as the input of the casual players. The problem is, I don't think enough casual players are much for online logs and communication like the rest of us. So as good as it is to give input on a forum site for casual players' paradise, there is evidently not enough of the right kind. If conducting a non-online survey was possible, I would suggest it, but having a majority of players who are not commonly oriented for online communication makes it seem somewhat hopeless that CW will be steered correctly enough. It's a crying shame, but I see no reason why it is not true.   :-[:( :'(

As to how saddening the thought is, follow this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmYO20Avrs and pick which one you decide is sadder than all the others. Your choice will be what you can imagine going through my mind right now.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on December 01, 2012, 02:59:04 AM
I don't think you can apply a term like "correct" (let alone "correct enough") for a video game. At least not in general. The categories of correct and wrong can only occur on a very individual personal level. And it's not even a matter of pleasing the majority. If nature abhors a vacuum, so does game development. Producing a niche game can be very successful.
As casual players seldom play a game after they have completed the main missions, I don't think they always are the main target group of a developer. They are from a sales perspective, true. But this only means that a game has to be kept simple enough (the bar for that is actually pretty high, though), as not to discourage those kinds of players. To clarify: if you play Chronom/Code/Custom missions more than once or twice, ever, you aren't a casual gamer any more.
Quite another thing is deciding to make your opinion heard. With these forums and the blog, KC provides ample opportunity for that. But it takes your own motivation to actually post something.
Also, it's not that there are any poll's around here, so that we'd actually get to decide anything.

EDIT: I don't mean to complain about that. It's just that V has made the right (i.e. "not wrong") calls for the past two games. I strongly believe a game will become better, if the developers make it the way they like it to be, rather than try to please as large a number of people as possible.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on December 01, 2012, 04:38:54 AM
This: (http://www.incgamers.com/2012/11/credits-cobras-and-crowd-funding-david-braben-tells-us-about-elite-dangerous/) "We wrote the game primarily for ourselves‭ ‬– ie‭ ‬we were the judges of what the game should be,‭ ‬and we wanted something very different from what had gone before.‭ ‬That freedom was a big part of that,‭ ‬so yes,‭ ‬the freedom was our intention from the start,‭..."


Not Virgil's words, but the sentiments of another indie game developer. It encapsulates the difference between a game programmer/publisher and an indie developer.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 01, 2012, 09:03:25 AM
I'm pretty sure, based on V's previous games, that he's quite aware that his main market is a casual one, and that this market is quite under-represented in places like online forums.

And as Gran pointed out, the 'Correct' direction for the game is the direction that conveys the experience V wants to convey.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on December 01, 2012, 01:53:01 PM
Quote from: lurkily on December 01, 2012, 09:03:25 AM

And as Gran (http://bit.ly/SnnxXy) pointed out, the 'Correct' direction for the game is the direction that conveys the experience V wants to convey.

???  That's new.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on December 01, 2012, 05:54:07 PM
I feel having an enemy that truly hates you is part of the design of the game Virgil created. I felt spores and drones were extremely malicious and truly tried to destroy you. But that's my own opinion and experience and as you said Lurkily "Of course, no two people experience the same events the same way, so all those reasons are entirely subjective."

We probably should redirect the discussion back onto suggesting ideas and not what we and others believe is the intended path for CW. :P

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 01, 2012, 07:25:15 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on December 01, 2012, 01:53:01 PM
Quote from: lurkily on December 01, 2012, 09:03:25 AMGran (http://bit.ly/SnnxXy)
???  That's new.
Graun . . . typo.  :/
Quote from: Chawe800 on December 01, 2012, 05:54:07 PM
I feel having an enemy that truly hates you is part of the design of the game Virgil created. I felt spores and drones were extremely malicious and truly tried to destroy you. But that's my own opinion and experience and as you said Lurkily "Of course, no two people experience the same events the same way, so all those reasons are entirely subjective."
Drones are the only thing that gave me the impression of directed threat, and to me, felt fundamentally different than any other threat in the CW universe. Even they did not act intelligently - their behavior was more like a swarm of bees, randomly lashing out at anything non-bee when the hive is disturbed, rather than acting intelligently.  But you're right that we've reached the end of where we can expand on the subject - at this point all we can do is reinforce that we disagree with each other.

So.  Ideas.  I want to see natural features on the map that, in the style of Total Annihilation, can be reclaimed.  Basically, I want to see natural map features have the optional properties of "Roma Victor" crystals.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: inspiratieloos on December 02, 2012, 05:26:05 AM
Quote from: lurkily on December 01, 2012, 07:25:15 PMSo.  Ideas.  I want to see natural features on the map that, in the style of Total Annihilation, can be reclaimed.  Basically, I want to see natural map features have the optional properties of "Roma Victor" crystals.
Maybe introduce titan units that way? Instead of finding a blueprint you find the prototype, either inactive and not targeted by the creeper or having to get to it before creeper destroys it.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 02, 2012, 07:59:21 AM
Not like that - artifacts and escape pods are fine, sure.  I mean trees and mineral deposits, etc.  I mean, tech could work out that way, too, but that wasn't what I was trying to say.

In TA, you could reclaim plants and rocks and wrecks that were on the map to gather energy and metal from the map.  I'd like to see similar things as optional objectives, to reward aggressive play from the player - if the creeper reaches it, it's gone.

Alternately, the creeper might also "eat" those features to produce more creeper.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on December 02, 2012, 10:01:50 PM
Hrm. Been a while since I've looked at this forum.

Seeing the new video has inspired me with something that's...completely unrelated to it. I mean, Virgil doesn't even use a single shield!

Anyways, this is the idea.

Shockwave / Force/Seismic Mine/Bomb/Bomber: Basically, this would be a payload that wouldn't actually destroy any Creeper or even Runners. What it would do is act like a short-lived shield and violently push Creeper away from itself. Since it's most likely an air-dropped mine/bomb, it would be very useful for delaying Creeper from a distance. In addition, it would tear up Digitalis in the immediate vicinity, further enhancing its ability to block off Creeper movement. Of course, loading ships full of Shockwave Bombs might not be so good for your energy storage... Alternatively, it could be placed as an individual mine to provide a relatively cheap way to defend against Creeper surges for short periods. Plus, it's a much more interesting kind of mine than the old mortar mines. On the other hand, this obviously doesn't let you drop it into Creeper, and more importantly, into Digitalis.

Quote from: inspiratieloos on December 02, 2012, 05:26:05 AM
Quote from: lurkily on December 01, 2012, 07:25:15 PMSo.  Ideas.  I want to see natural features on the map that, in the style of Total Annihilation, can be reclaimed.  Basically, I want to see natural map features have the optional properties of "Roma Victor" crystals.
Maybe introduce titan units that way? Instead of finding a blueprint you find the prototype, either inactive and not targeted by the creeper or having to get to it before creeper destroys it.

Both good ideas.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on December 04, 2012, 06:43:39 PM
This is a fairly random ideal but what if relay transmitted packets at half speed(collector speed) when in deficit. This would make Deficit more risky by reducing supplication powers mid-game. This could also be a unique quirk in early game by preventing some(not all) rapid expansion. I don't want to take away aggressiveness potential but make the Dance of Deficit more dangerous
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on December 04, 2012, 06:58:06 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on December 04, 2012, 06:43:39 PM
This is a fairly random ideal but what if relay transmitted packets at half speed(collector speed) when in deficit. This would make Deficit more risky by reducing supplication powers mid-game. This could also be a unique quirk in early game by preventing some(not all) rapid expansion. I don't want to take away aggressiveness potential but make the Dance of Deficit more dangerous

Personally, I think the Dance of Deficit is a vital part of aggressive gameplay.  :P

I would be interested if this was a time-delayed effect, though.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 04, 2012, 07:20:47 PM
The whole purpose of relays (aside from distant connections) is to create fast-moving paths for packets to travel.  I could see slowing the speed of ALL packets, but just relays?

I'm unsure of this idea - after all, punishing a player who's already in deficit may just make it more difficult to recover.  I'd rather see things like various tech upgrades failing, than to see direct economic impacts.  (Yeah, I know some upgrades are, in themselves, economic.  But I'd rather see combat efficiency impacted, before economic efficiency.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on December 05, 2012, 06:22:39 AM
Quote from: lurkily on December 04, 2012, 07:20:47 PMpunishing a player who's already in deficit may just make it more difficult to recover.
I think that is the idea. Sounds promising. At least for some form of hard mode.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 05, 2012, 10:47:27 AM
For a casual game, making the results of a mistake so painful that a player might be inclined to restart the level instead of fight through and overcome sounds a bit harsh to me.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on December 05, 2012, 07:07:21 PM
I don't mean to make it too painful of a time reduction on the rapid expansion side but more of an annoyance if you overbuild in the middle part of the game. I think I stronger military related punishment would serve nicely. Also this might just be me rambling but I feel a runner's stun should eat away some ammo in the weapon's fuel tank as well.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 05, 2012, 09:11:47 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on December 05, 2012, 07:07:21 PM
I don't mean to make it too painful of a time reduction on the rapid expansion side but more of an annoyance if you overbuild in the middle part of the game. I think I stronger military related punishment would serve nicely. Also this might just be me rambling but I feel a runner's stun should eat away some ammo in the weapon's fuel tank as well.
I just think that losing energy transport when you already don't have enough energy to transport is kind of a double threat.  You're already short on energy to distribute, and now it moves slower, too?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on December 07, 2012, 02:35:05 PM
Targetable Sprayers
I'd like to see an option with Sprayers to "force attack" a location, letting me create a pool of Anticreeper in an area even if there's no Creeper present, without the imprecision and delays involved in using a bomber to do the same.  This would be akin to leaving a Maker running in CW2 even if it wasn't directly combating Creeper, primarily for the purposes of building up a giant pile of AC for later use, against anticipated incursion, or just for doing entertaining things like making moats of AC.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on December 10, 2012, 02:57:30 PM
What makes it "targetable"? All I see is the sprayer making a large pool of AC for an upcoming attack, thus making it "defend/pile-able".
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 10, 2012, 03:00:53 PM
Being able to force-attack would let you throw AC across void without using two sprayers or a sprayer/bomber.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on December 10, 2012, 07:06:29 PM
I see this as a good idea to allow AC to be shot across small *small* voids with the sprayer. However what do you guys think about it's effectivness to shoot over cliffs?

Yes? No? personally I think no but I would like to hear other opinions.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on December 10, 2012, 07:38:56 PM
Quote from: 4xC on December 10, 2012, 02:57:30 PM
What makes it "targetable"? All I see is the sprayer making a large pool of AC for an upcoming attack, thus making it "defend/pile-able".
It's like Lurkily says, a force-attack option.  Or another checkbox on it's list of functionality, "continuously emit creeper."

I'm not sure forcing elevation/line-of-sight checks on sprayers is going to accomplish much.  Terps have made elevation irrelevant in a lot of ways, as a brief energy expenditure would let you make a gun tower for any structure at the maximum elevation.  If terps aren't available on every level, of course that'll change things noticeably...
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 10, 2012, 07:43:39 PM
I  don't think it should be able to cross barriers to line-of-sight.

That said, I have no problem with it firing across voids as broad as it's firing range can reach - every other weapon seems to behave that way, and void isn't a barrier to LoS.

EDIT: In fact, if it can fire across a small void, how would you justify it suddenly performing beneath its capabilities when faced with a broader void?  No other weapon loses function like that.

I missed this:
Quote from: Shrike30 on December 10, 2012, 07:38:56 PMI'm not sure forcing elevation/line-of-sight checks on sprayers is going to accomplish much.
They already respect LoS.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on December 11, 2012, 01:48:23 PM
Well Terps had made it easier indeed but Having to brings terps along can cause some difficulties aswell and I think that works out greati n the sense. For example what if there is only a small amount of isolated land surronded by void having to sacrifice room for something else important (say a shield) to place the terp can make all the difference in some situations.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 11, 2012, 06:09:16 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on December 11, 2012, 01:48:23 PMWell Terps had made it easier indeed but Having to brings terps along can cause some difficulties aswell
Well, Terps have a very long range.  On the other hand, though, they are very expensive to operate, take time to operate, and in areas where creeper exist, they cannot be used - so if you have flat terrain with 'boulders' or 'spires' (1- and 2- increases in terrain) as we saw in Roma Victor, for instance, Terraformers will be nearly useless for extending the range of pulse cannons.  Once you're capable of clearing an area, you can smooth it for further progress, but I don't think they're going to be a mainstay of combat.

I think they're going to be better off used for specific projects like walls or 'bridges', or platforms that you can put a relay and mortar on, to cross energy over low-lying areas.  Things like this require you to saturate an area with bombardment to raise terrain until it can be terraformed freely, but once you're done, provide lasting benefit.  For general combat, you're better off just using better tactical positioning to keep good sight lines.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on December 12, 2012, 07:01:17 AM
Another really specific comment I have is can terps lower ground or zap a level 4 down to level 1? I think that could be very useful for many cases. Also the potential for unterraformable terrain I think could be a important aspect of Terps and their use in specific maps. I also think every misses the classic decayable terrain but we'll just have to see what V is up to.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 12, 2012, 09:41:58 AM
I'm pretty sure terps can zap a level anything to a level anything . . . given time and energy.

EDIT: I'm not sure about decayable myself - we may have to stick with walls.  I can't imagine a way to visualize when a terrain is decayable except through the mouse-over image, or by plastering the map with numbers like the terraforming numbers, which would just be a mess - especially if you also needed to terraform there.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on December 12, 2012, 11:05:54 PM
if you terra formed one level onto a decayable terrain would that make the creeper come out in a tunnel underneath the level added by the terp? also wouldn't it be possible, but very annoying to program, a back and forth version of the game so you could switch between above and below ground in the game just to make it interesting?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on December 12, 2012, 11:18:29 PM
Decayable terrain in a top-down game presents challenges not present in the CW2 aspect. For instance, what should happen to decayable terrain that decays? Should it decay to level 0 or to a void? You can see how that presents a challenge to the game maker and the player.

For now, there is no intent to make CW3 consider a truly 3-dimensional aspect to creeper. So no tunnels.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on December 12, 2012, 11:24:01 PM
but could 3D be a possibility for CW4?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on December 12, 2012, 11:27:35 PM
I'm pretty sure not even Virgil has thought much about what comes after CW3.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 13, 2012, 08:46:43 AM
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on December 12, 2012, 11:24:01 PMbut could 3D be a possibility for CW4?
I seriously doubt it, unless CW vastly changes its format from a fixed perspective.  Even then, showing the full extent of any tunnel system immediately and at a glance would be extremely challenging.

It is a potent idea, but for a casual game I doubt you're going to see spread in more than a two-dimensional plane.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on December 14, 2012, 10:32:11 PM
Re-watching 'The Marsh' when I came up with another idea.

Enhanced Spores
Spoiler
These are spore that have been improved in various aspects. I am aware that spores can have their speed, health, and payload modified but I think another aspect could be added to them to make them more dangerous. What if spores deployed mini asteroids of creeper that fell dropping creeper on it's path. Almost a creeper bomber in the sense. I think this would make spores more dangerous and apply more weight to eliminating spore cannons halfway across the map that leave a strengthened path of creeper in it's wake. I also think having Digitalis spores would be cool too.
[close]
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on December 15, 2012, 03:57:27 PM
I updated the Original Op and compiled all the suggestions :D http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=10478.msg68734#msg68734 (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=10478.msg68734#msg68734)
On another note we spent 3 pages, yes 3 pages, discussing the Casual/not casual player issue. Let us not descend to the previous haywire folks ;) . There is only so far a idea can be juiced before it becomes counter-productive.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Neko187 on December 16, 2012, 04:56:23 PM
Quote from: lurkily on December 13, 2012, 08:46:43 AM
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on December 12, 2012, 11:24:01 PMbut could 3D be a possibility for CW4?
I seriously doubt it, unless CW vastly changes its format from a fixed perspective.  Even then, showing the full extent of any tunnel system immediately and at a glance would be extremely challenging.

It is a potent idea, but for a casual game I doubt you're going to see spread in more than a two-dimensional plane.

I sense 2.5D games in the future... although it would be a pain to program. I think what would work best for this idea would be to either have multiple views of the map, or to have it be slightly transparent. I think three views, one showing only creeper, one showing the land, and one combining the two would be the best approach, although this would lead to a less in-depth experience.  :-\
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 16, 2012, 07:51:59 PM
2.5D basically refers to 2-D gameplay in a game that uses a 3D rendering engine.  I don't believe this would help represent creeper flow through underground caverns in full, and at a glance, in a straightforward enough manner that a person doesn't have to learn to interpret the results.

In other words, 2.5D doesn't help dismiss any of the limitations mentioned earlier.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on December 17, 2012, 01:36:01 AM
Are you sure it's not the other way round? 3D game-play in 2D rendering? I think it could be done. Maybe not today, but we're talking CW4 here. That's going to come about waaaay into the future.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 17, 2012, 07:32:52 AM
3D gameplay in 2D rendering is a lot older than that term - writing code to respect three dimensions is a lot easier and older than 3D modeling.  Think about, for example the Fatal Fury games, and other Beat'Em-Ups.  They provide gameplay with lateral motion, vertical motion, (jumping,) and depth.  X, Y, and Z - 3 dimensions.

I think Creeper world already respects a 3-D environment - it simulates horizontal motion, vertical motion, and depth.  Based on V's responses, it seems like tunneling would not represent a challenge to code, only a challenge to represent to the player.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on December 22, 2012, 04:36:40 PM
As 2D as CW can be in some respects, it is agreeably 3D enough as it is. We do not need to move on to 3D modeling and making pure 3D designs for everything just yet. It would be too quick in terms of series evolution.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 22, 2012, 08:59:57 PM
Quote from: 4xC on December 22, 2012, 04:36:40 PM
As 2D as CW can be in some respects, it is agreeably 3D enough as it is. We do not need to move on to 3D modeling and making pure 3D designs for everything just yet. It would be too quick in terms of series evolution.
Not really what I'm trying to say.

My point is, 3-D modeling would not really solve the problem of being able to visually represent 3D underground caverns of creeper.  Not in a way that could easily be grokked from a 2-D perspective.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on December 23, 2012, 09:13:58 AM
We're going on another rant folks ;)
I think we've squeezed enough out of the whole 3D thing and I'm relatively confident virgil has played around with it before, at this stage it is unnecessary to suggest it anyway.
Now then a suggestion...

The Pulverizer
Long version:
Spoiler
This fine piece of merchandise is unlike any other military piece ever contemplated prior to it's release. Rather then fighting and grinding at the creeper it harvests it into much needed energy! Yes indeed a weapon that uses the enemy to get you energy! What it does is it has an internal anti-creeper chamber reacting with the absorbed creeper to turn into raw energy. This is then redistributed to the network or stored internally if disconnected. It is ineffective against digitalis and it is very silly to use it to try and stop creeper, since it only absorbs a very negligible amount. Perfect for last ditch efforts or on a small contested map where your network is stretched to the brink.
[close]
Short Version: Absorbs a negligible amount of Creeper and turns it into energy for the network. Perfect for extreme missions with high energy demands or, for experts, a faster setup. It has an attack range, and works similar to a terp beam.
Hoodwink's Pulverizer
Long Version:
Spoiler
This fella is unique and handy but nowhere near over-powered. It harvests creeper and turns that into anti-creeper packets which are sent back to the network. Due to space/time disruptions near emitters it can only effectively work with creeper that is far away from any emitters. It slowly absorbs creeper directly and either puts it in internal storage or sends it to the network.These are mighty weapons in an experimental stage and can help bring your network the anti-creeper it needs when starting off, or when the map has none. It is a Titan Class weapon but one of the cheapest Titan's available, nonetheless it costs more then the average unit at 60 energy per unit. It is incapable of taking creeper from below digitalis and is susceptible to runners.
[close]
Short version: Titan Class at 60 energy construction price. Absorbs creeper that is far away from emitters and turns it into anti-creeper, stored/returned to network. Curbs anti-creeper problems in ore-less maps, great new resource source.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on December 23, 2012, 01:25:52 PM
Would the Pulverizer have to be placed right on creeper to work. or shall it hav an "attack range" kind of AoE?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on December 24, 2012, 12:41:36 PM
Quote from: Mr.H on December 23, 2012, 09:13:58 AM

The Pulverizer
-snip-

I think a good tweak to that would be that it slowly produces ore instead of energy, since creeper is material (and it also uses some of this ore for it's own 'anti-creeper chamber' to use.
However, I don't like the possibility of a player using an emitter as a reactor, by farming it with these things when it's been beaten back. Using enough of these things - and lots of continual creeper - to mass-farm energy.
My suggestion:
Make it more powerful, give it a twist (only work in certain area / only handles a small amount of creeper), and call it a Titan. Might work...

EDIT: Very subtle Mr. H, but yeah, that's the general idea.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on December 24, 2012, 04:42:51 PM
Hurm.  I think the reason I don't like this is because it crosses the line between weaponry and economy.  You can build this conversion reactor, use it to buffer yourself against creeper, use the energy to build another conversion reactor, use the damage to buffer against creeper and the energy to build yet another conversion reactor, ad nauseum.

I think I prefer the idea of a titan that can convert ore to energy, or vice-versa, but rips you off doing it.  AC players can force-dump their stockpile of energy into ore with reactor farms, other players will then have a reason to build ore mines, to supplement energy income.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on January 10, 2013, 03:24:41 PM
Heck, anything new and good enough for normal-ish use sounds good for at least a second and maybe third titan. I just hope and pray there will be more than one titan and orbital each when CW3 is released.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on January 13, 2013, 03:08:51 AM
what if they put in cut scene like pick up this and you watch a short video.
also my mother suggested that you cold find weapons in bits and put them together.
of course that suits the titans as the are large enough to be found in chunks.
also the pulverizer could be toggled between energy and anti-creeper production.

just some suggestions

tornado

PS:i agger on the pulverizer being titan class.
and speaking of titans i thought of at titan that stops time.and leves you capable of moving around for one mouth at full ammo capacity.
i got the idea from the Greek legends bout the titans that came before the gods in Greek mythology,manly kronos the lord of time.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 13, 2013, 07:36:59 AM
I'm curious, what led to the name 'Pulverizer'?  It sounds a little too badass a name for a really thirsty reactor.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on January 13, 2013, 08:48:53 AM
Quote from: tornado on January 13, 2013, 03:08:51 AM
what if they put in cut scene like pick up this and you watch a short video.
What would the video be about? Making videos is a very expensive activity, paying for actors, scriptwriters and producers is not cheap. How much value would that add to the game? It also adds substantially to the size of the game and how we can deliver the game.

Quote
also my mother suggested that you cold find weapons in bits and put them together.
of course that suits the titans as the are large enough to be found in chunks.

I think we did at one time consider the idea of Remnants that could be used in constructing something. It may or may not happen, things in game development has a way of evolving. Right now I think that the "big thing" for CW3 will be CRPL. The one strong, consistent request from map makers was the ability to program their units. Not that may players expressed an interest in a type of a "quest" to search for objects across the various maps. Also, the ability to use (or not use) such a device may be affected by the custom maps one plays - remember that custom maps make out a far greater portion of the playable map universe than the in-game maps. The device may also change the map dynamic and alter how easy or hard specific maps are. Up to now all maps were uniformly hard for all players.

Quote
and speaking of titans i thought of at titan that stops time.

Another thing we thought about, but at the moment the only way we could implement it was to use the "Freeze" button and to make a map go into "stasis" if you leave the planet.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on January 16, 2013, 10:23:40 AM
About the Time-freezing Titan idea: What if you made it able to freeze time in a select location for a short period, or made it slow down time drastically for a slightly longer but still short period, or both. It would presumably require a constant connection to energy packets coming in like the DB of CW2.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 16, 2013, 10:33:15 AM
I worry that it would create weird effects - for instance, a big buildup of creeper, where creep could flow in but not out at the same rate - lots of potential for weirdness, and very little actual game effectiveness.  Destroying creeper should usually buy you more time, long and short term, than time-freezing it.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 16, 2013, 01:15:41 PM
The whole oint about time-freezing is that it doesn't apply to you. Otherwise you could just use the pause option. The area affected by a time-freeze would turn the creeper (and digitalis, runners, etc.) immobile. Your units would still be able to attack, reducing the amount of creeper in the area in question. There would have to be a barrier between affected and unaffected creeper, though.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on January 16, 2013, 01:23:05 PM
I'm reading this and wondering: What does time-freezing the creeper actually accomplish?
For instance, if you wanted to stop the advance you would send cannons at it, or put a shield in it's way to push it back.
It seems over-complicated from a programming point of view just to render everything in a certain area inactive. Can't you build a couple of shields and blasters there instead, even a mortar if necessary? It seems to me that this would cost less energy and just freezing the whole thing. Although it will most likely be doable with scripts...
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on January 16, 2013, 01:43:04 PM
Quote from: Ronini on January 16, 2013, 01:15:41 PM
The whole oint about time-freezing is that it doesn't apply to you. Otherwise you could just use the pause option. The area affected by a time-freeze would turn the creeper (and digitalis, runners, etc.) immobile. Your units would still be able to attack, reducing the amount of creeper in the area in question. There would have to be a barrier between affected and unaffected creeper, though.

Logically, if time is frozen, nothing can be done in that area.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 16, 2013, 01:57:43 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on January 16, 2013, 01:43:04 PM
Quote from: Ronini on January 16, 2013, 01:15:41 PM
The whole point about time-freezing is that it doesn't apply to you. Otherwise you could just use the pause option. The area affected by a time-freeze would turn the creeper (and digitalis, runners, etc.) immobile. Your units would still be able to attack, reducing the amount of creeper in the area in question. There would have to be a barrier between affected and unaffected creeper, though.

Logically, if time is frozen, nothing can be done in that area.

Logically, time cannot be frozen with anyone being aware of it. But computer games and logic seldom agree completely.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 16, 2013, 09:12:16 PM
Quote from: Ronini on January 16, 2013, 01:15:41 PM
The whole oint about time-freezing is that it doesn't apply to you. Otherwise you could just use the pause option.
I don't think anybody suggested that the time freeze should be or would be global - I agree, that would make no sense.
Quote from: Ronini on January 16, 2013, 01:57:43 PMLogically, time cannot be frozen with anyone being aware of it. But computer games and logic seldom agree completely.
Well if time is frozen only in a localized area, then people outside that locality would be aware of it.  The physics are probably impossible, but when has that stopped video games?

Quote from: hoodwink on January 16, 2013, 01:23:05 PMI'm reading this and wondering: What does time-freezing the creeper actually accomplish?
For instance, if you wanted to stop the advance you would send cannons at it, or put a shield in it's way to push it back.
This is what I was trying to say in my last post here.  Why would I build a titan to time-freeze creeper so I could shoot it?  I would much rather build several shields, several extra blasters, several extra mortars, and spend less energy building them, finish them faster, and probably buy myself more time against the advance of creeper in the bargain.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 17, 2013, 02:03:30 AM
If you had to deal with a sudden massive wave of creeper (four letters: CRPL) that would simply overwhelm your shields and PCs, freezing it could be a way to save you. There are other situations this could be applicable, I'm sure. True, it won't be required in any case, though. But cutting off an area where no amount of creeper can enter for a period of time (i.e. a localized (time-)freeze) can be a viable strategy. Ultimately, it comes down to BALANCING the energy costs, as usual.
By the way, I wouldn't miss this feature one bit.

Quote from: lurkily on January 16, 2013, 09:12:16 PM
Quote from: Ronini on January 16, 2013, 01:57:43 PMLogically, time cannot be frozen with anyone being aware of it. But computer games and logic seldom agree completely.
Well if time is frozen only in a localized area, then people outside that locality would be aware of it.  The physics are probably impossible, but when has that stopped video games?
It could be argued that if time runs on outside, it also runs on inside the area. What's being frozen is everything but time. Don't you love it that the more elementary physics gets, the more it looks like philosophy and rethoric?

EDIT: Following Lurkily's post below: See highlighting above.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 17, 2013, 07:51:10 AM
Quote from: Ronini on January 17, 2013, 02:03:30 AM
If you had to deal with a sudden massive wave of creeper (four letters: CRPL) that would simply overwhelm your shields and PCs, freezing it could be a way to save you.
It is one way, if the titan is already built.  For the energy you put into building that titan and powering it though, you could probably build the PC's and mortars and shields that would allow you to weather the storm, and damage more creeper instead.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on January 17, 2013, 02:28:21 PM
Another related option might be a titan that slows down creeper expansion and other processes in a localized area; my recollection of the power generation from CW1 is that it involved quantum taps, so the technology is ostensibly available for a titan that could pull most of the thermal energy out of an area for a while.  Creeper would expand slower, your units would fire slower, everything would happen more slowly within the designated area... letting you cool down a hot spot while the rest of your economy goes on at full speed.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on January 17, 2013, 04:22:47 PM
I ike that and would definitly see it in some scnarios. However I see some problems with it.

Since it's a Titan it would definitly take a lot of energy to create and operate making it ineffective in any rush scenarios.

If you really struggle to manage you can always slow the game down or pause it :P
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 17, 2013, 09:19:01 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on January 17, 2013, 02:28:21 PM
Another related option might be a titan that slows down creeper expansion and other processes in a localized area; my recollection of the power generation from CW1 is that it involved quantum taps, so the technology is ostensibly available for a titan that could pull most of the thermal energy out of an area for a while.  Creeper would expand slower, your units would fire slower, everything would happen more slowly within the designated area... letting you cool down a hot spot while the rest of your economy goes on at full speed.
I'm pretty sure this is already what we're talking about, yes?  Either stopping or slowing time in a localized area.

I don't think anybody pushing the idea is doing so because they want easier time management, Chawe, but the actual advantage of putting more shots into creeper in the time it would normally take that creeper to overcome them.  The problem is, you can do that more effectively by building more pulse cannons, rather than by building a titan.

Anti-rush weapons shouldn't be unweildy, awkward titan class units, and offensive weapons need to be more than a delaying action.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 18, 2013, 02:02:20 AM
Who says a titan unit has to be extremely expensive? Depending on the titans function, it cost could be relatively low. Besides, you might not have the room to place additional PCs, so you have to find a way to make the few you have more effective.

Another idea, that would be applicable in similar situations the above would be: A Conversion Bomber, which drops conversion bombs instead of anti-creeper pay-loads. Only useful, if there's no ore on the map, otherwise you could use regular bombers to much the same effect.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: MapMaster on January 18, 2013, 07:28:48 AM
I thouht you could have a buildable Anti-Creeper releaser, like the one in CW2. I was also thinking you could have an Anti-Creeper Maker that generates Anti-Creeper away from home base. My last idea is a tower that synthesises Ore, so you can make AC when Ore is low.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 18, 2013, 08:01:44 AM
Quote from: Ronini on January 18, 2013, 02:02:20 AM
Who says a titan unit has to be extremely expensive? Depending on the titans function, it cost could be relatively low. Besides, you might not have the room to place additional PCs, so you have to find a way to make the few you have more effective.
Titans typically are effective enough to justify the expense, but not so effective that they obsolete an equal expense in conventional (non-titan) weapons.  If they are that effective, then they probably aren't balanced.  (With the caveat that there is an exception to every rule in game design - as the CW series helps prove.)

Less expense, less effect - radius, duration, etc.  It becomes something you put in conventional units.  And put in that categorization, using it over a couple of mortars or PC's makes even less business sense to me.

Quote from: Ronini on January 17, 2013, 02:03:30 AM
Quote from: lurkily on January 16, 2013, 09:12:16 PMWell if time is frozen only in a localized area, then people outside that locality would be aware of it.  The physics are probably impossible, but when has that stopped video games?
It could be argued that if time runs on outside, it also runs on inside the area. What's being frozen is everything but time. Don't you love it that the more elementary physics gets, the more it looks like philosophy and rethoric?
If the unit says it freezes time, time stops.  From a design standpoint, that's as far as I care.  Physics and philosophy can be fascinating, but they can get juggled in another forum.  <Shrugs>
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 18, 2013, 10:29:28 AM
Quote from: lurkily on January 18, 2013, 08:01:44 AM
Titans typically are effective enough to justify the expense, but not so effective that they obsolete an equal expense in conventional (non-titan) weapons.  If they are that effective, then they probably aren't balanced.  (With the caveat that there is an exception to every rule in game design - as the CW series helps prove.)

Less expense, less effect - radius, duration, etc.  It becomes something you put in conventional units.  And put in that categorization, using it over a couple of mortars or PC's makes even less business sense to me.


Your post opens the possibility that you may or may not know about more than one Titan, about which you may or may not be able and/or willing to elaborate, yet.
Apart from that, I'm not quite sure I understand what your point is, exactly? A chrono-reactor could, for instance, be armed long before it's time-stopping power is used, thus lowering the required energy at the moment of use in comparison to operating a higher number of weapons instead. In addition, eliminating more creeper with more cannons is not at all the same as stopping the flow of new creeper altogether.
Frankly, the more I think about time manipulation unit, the more I feel such a unit would fit in really well in the CW arsenal.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 18, 2013, 10:41:28 AM
I say 'most titans' in the sense of titan/experimental/superweapons in general, across many games, rather than specific to CW - nothing I said was in reference to CW development.

Yes, yes, you could spend the energy long before it's needed - and instead of having relatively easily built PC's and mortars that actually destroy creeper, you'd have an over-expensive toy that slowed it down at some expense, but didn't actually assist you in destroying more creeper. It won't even maintain deep creep for mortars - it would inhibit creeper flowing in just as effectively as creeper flowing out.

When the time freeze wears off, where are you?  In most cases you're looking for a balance, and balance is based on the pressure creeper exerts on your front.  This does not tip the balance, it only slows the shifting of the balance.  The situations in which that's useful are very limited, and most of those situations can be served by actually destroying creeper.

There's an adage in game design - focus on the design of fun, not the fun of design.  It's an interesting idea, and it's fun to explore the possibilities, but in this form I think most of its fun in gameplay would lie in novelty value. I think that this concept needs more, for real usefulness.  It needs to be developed further.  I'm not sure where to take it, but maybe someone else has ideas.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: koker93 on January 19, 2013, 11:28:53 AM
I really like the idea of a time slowing weapon.  a weapon that allows you to deliver more shots to the creeper as it advanced per second without a corresponding fire rate increase.  But such a weapon would really change the balance of the game, so what I've read seems correct.  It would have to be a titan class weapon.  Expensive to build and run.  Here is the problem with that though.  You cant normally build a titan class weapon right away.  You are busy using all your resources to build collectors and reactors and other non offensive infrastructure so you can attack later on.  if you start "wasting" packets on a titan you cant build reactors with them and probably die...so you wait.  But by the time you can afford to build the titan you can also afford to build conventional weapons.  Usually at this point in the level (at least for me, and I would guess most people who will read this) there is no possible way, other than complete carelessness that you can lose.  Once the base is built out, nothing else gets in the way.

It sounds like a really fun concept that I would like to play with in the game.  But it also sounds like it would be mostly a toy, just like the Thor in CW1.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: The Paul on January 19, 2013, 12:27:00 PM
So the wife and I recently said to ourselves, "You know what was really fun?  Creeper world," and played it a bit.

And in reflecting we thought, "CW2 was a pretty fantastic game on a lot of levels, but there are a couple things we wish it had."

1)A little bit better control over what the Code-missions /random map generator spits out.  Like if I could tell it "No drones," but also check a "Surface Access" box or something, to insure there's enough destructible terrain that the creeper can always chew its way to the surface, eventually.  Stuff like that.

2) Some kind of virtually infinite "galactic conquest" mode.  Humanity settled across most of the galaxy, and then the Creeper destroyed nearly everything, and the tone and theme of the second game suggested an attempt to go out there and take it back.  Maybe there could be some sort of collaborative effort where some group of players all submit scores and results to the same galaxy-cleansing campaign.

3)Some sort of carry-over between missions.  Some kind of experience points or currency that could be earned from playing a mission, something that would create a bit of a sense of continuity mission to mission.  It could be used to unlock new maps or modes, or make a bunch of tiny, not-very-significant upgrades that carry over mission to mission.  Not game breaking stuff of course, not stuff you'd need to be able to play through the story.  More like the kinds narrow advantages and small percentages you can squeeze out of something like the skill trees in League of Legends.

...so it'd be awesome if some of this appeared in Creeper World 3
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on January 19, 2013, 12:46:04 PM
Hello The Paul (and wife) :) Rare to see a team playing... Welcome to the forums.

[quote author=The Paul link=topic=11850.msg87448#msg87448 date=1358616420]
1)A little bit better control over what the Code-missions /random map generator spits out. 

Yep, I also wanted that but it wasn't to be.  Right now all worlds are pre-generated. Virgil is quite pressed for time to bring something out, so I'm not sure we're going to see him find much time to devote to this aspect. It does have merit though, so I'll mention it to him again. :)

Quote
2) Some kind of virtually infinite "galactic conquest" mode. 
There has always been a lot of requests for "co-operative campaigns" but I'm not sure that is very high on any list. There are a number of issues with communicating between the various players states,, etc. Not unsolvable, just a lot of work for one man to solve and maintain, as well as support all the weird issues that may be reported.

Quote3)Some sort of carry-over between missions. 
I believe something might be in plan for this. :)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 19, 2013, 03:17:06 PM
Quote from: koker93 on January 19, 2013, 11:28:53 AM
I really like the idea of a time slowing weapon.  a weapon that allows you to deliver more shots to the creeper as it advanced per second without a corresponding fire rate increase.  But such a weapon would really change the balance of the game, so what I've read seems correct.
I really think this is a red herring.  It seems and sounds powerful, but I don't think it is.

The problem is, it would not deliver more shots to creeper as it advanced as you mention, it would only slow the advance.  Striking a balance is dependent on creeper emitted/second and creeper destroyed/sec.  If the latter value doesn't balance or overtake the former value, then no amount of slowdown or time freeze will prevent you from being eventually overwhelmed. 

I can't see any scenario in which a time slowdown/freeze would help you destroy creeper at a higher rate than normal.  It might even be counterproductive - it would inhibit creeper from flowing into the kill zone, making mortars less effective.

Adding more PC's/mortars also slows the advance of creeper, and has the added benefit of actually destroying it.  Time manipulation is awesome as a game mechanic, but it needs effectiveness to match, or it's nothing but a novelty.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: koker93 on January 20, 2013, 01:58:31 PM
Lurlkily I think you are overlooking the aspect of a time weapon that is most important.  A weapon harms your enemies.  None of the CW universe of weapons does harm to player weapons, only creeper.  So time would slow down for the creeper, not the players towers.  I think the player advantage would be obvious.  If you and I were in a foot race, but time was moving 3X slower for you, I would win the race while you sprinted in slow motion.  If the creeper advanced 2X slower, well that would make killing it incrementally easier as the time effect becomes more pronounced.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 20, 2013, 05:25:13 PM
Quote from: koker93 on January 20, 2013, 01:58:31 PM
Lurlkily I think you are overlooking the aspect of a time weapon that is most important.  A weapon harms your enemies.  None of the CW universe of weapons does harm to player weapons, only creeper.  So time would slow down for the creeper, not the players towers.  I think the player advantage would be obvious.  If you and I were in a foot race, but time was moving 3X slower for you, I would win the race while you sprinted in slow motion.  If the creeper advanced 2X slower, well that would make killing it incrementally easier as the time effect becomes more pronounced.
Doesn't matter.  This isn't a race.  It's a rate-based fight - this competition is a war of attrition, not a marathon.  If you destroy X creeper per second, but X+1 creeper is emitted in that time, no amount of time slow-down will help more shots impact per second, or destroy more creeper per second.

Think of it this way - one nation produces 10 tanks a day, and the other nation only manages to destroy 9 of those tanks a day.  Slowing the advance of those tanks does nothing but buy more time.  Because they haven't slowed production, or sped up destruction, of those tanks, the advantage against them will increase at the same rate, even if the battlefront moves more slowly.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 21, 2013, 02:21:08 AM
Quote from: lurkily on January 20, 2013, 05:25:13 PM
Quote from: koker93 on January 20, 2013, 01:58:31 PM
Lurlkily I think you are overlooking the aspect of a time weapon that is most important.  A weapon harms your enemies.  None of the CW universe of weapons does harm to player weapons, only creeper.  So time would slow down for the creeper, not the players towers.  I think the player advantage would be obvious.  If you and I were in a foot race, but time was moving 3X slower for you, I would win the race while you sprinted in slow motion.  If the creeper advanced 2X slower, well that would make killing it incrementally easier as the time effect becomes more pronounced.
Doesn't matter.  This isn't a race.  It's a rate-based fight - this competition is a war of attrition, not a marathon.  If you destroy X creeper per second, but X+1 creeper is emitted in that time, no amount of time slow-down will help more shots impact per second, or destroy more creeper per second.

Think of it this way - one nation produces 10 tanks a day, and the other nation only manages to destroy 9 of those tanks a day.  Slowing the advance of those tanks does nothing but buy more time.  Because they haven't slowed production, or sped up destruction, of those tanks, the advantage against them will increase at the same rate, even if the battlefront moves more slowly.

Very nice analogy. Yet, it is slightly flawed. It's not just numbers produced, that matter. Among other factors, location of these numbers is also important. Let's say you dealt with 9 of 10 tanks a day. Over a week, that's 7 tanks that the enemy can do damage with, once they arrive somewhere they can do damage. Now, your cause seems hopeless in the long-run. But then, you fire up your new experimental time-slow-down-device, which stops dead (slows down) the additional tanks, enabling you to push back the battlefront a significant bit, in the course increasing your production capabilities, so that now you can destroy 11 tanks a day. See?

Further: Why not time-freeze the enemies tank factory, so for a day or two they only can produce 5 tanks? Having a weapon that cuts an emitters emission rate in half (stopping it entirely would certainly be OP) for a brief amount of time, could make all the difference.

Again: Yes, maybe you could overcome the emitter by sending in additional troops, but if there is just no room for them, they won't accomplish anything.

It comes down to two things: how big would the costs of the time-weapon be, and how do you deploy it. If you have a Bertha firing on a field of very shallow creeper, it wouldn't do much, that 2 or 3 PCs couldn't do better and cheaper.

If anything, the time-freezing unit would prove t be rather too useful than being pointless.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on January 21, 2013, 02:58:15 AM
If you have a continuous stream of tanks attacking you and you freeze 2 of them, they would start moving again with the next 2 tanks so you have twice as much tanks to kill for a short time.

Using this weapon against an emitter can be very powerful, since the creeper can't move away less creeper will be emitted (only if the AddCreeper command is not used).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kithros on January 21, 2013, 05:32:35 AM
Arguing that being able to slow down time would be pointless would be akin to calling CW2 repulsors or shields useless, or in more obscure cases saying that 'the start time on an emitter doesn't matter'. Hopefully all of these things are quite obviously not true. That said, I do feel like a time slowing/stopping unit would overlap very much with what (CW3) shields already do, and as such probably wouldn't be worth the effort of implementing.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 21, 2013, 08:34:54 AM
Quote from: Kithros on January 21, 2013, 05:32:35 AMArguing that being able to slow down time would be pointless would be akin to calling CW2 repulsors or shields useless,
Quote from: Ronini on January 21, 2013, 02:21:08 AMenabling you to push back the battlefront a significant bit, in the course increasing your production capabilities, so that now you can destroy 11 tanks a day. See?
We're actually in total agreement here.  What you guys and I are both saying is that, like a shield, it buys time, no more - no more or less than I've been claiming all along.  The claims that it can allow you to deal more damage to creeper is a red herring - the creeper in the field may feel like it's being blown up faster, but it would also perceive (if it has intelligence at all) more creeper being emitted behind it at a higher rate.

I don't think that's enough to justify titan class, personally.  It's not effective enough for the class of unit and for the class of power that people here seem to desire from it.
Quote from: J on January 21, 2013, 02:58:15 AMIf you have a continuous stream of tanks attacking you and you freeze 2 of them, they would start moving again with the next 2 tanks so you have twice as much tanks to kill for a short time.
And yet, you don't have more guns shooting at those four tanks.  If you've played TD games, you know that bunching up enemies are only useful for AoE weapons - for other weapons, it only makes it more likely one or two will begin to slip by.  However, the analogy fails at a certain point.  Due to the nature of creeper, it won't "Bunch up" like units in a tower defense being affected by a 'slow area'.  Creeper inherently spreads out.  I don't believe you'll see increased effectiveness from mortars.
Quote from: RoniniIf anything, the time-freezing unit would prove t be rather too useful than being pointless.
I don't see how it can be more useful than shields - they both do the same thing.  They prevent creeper from moving into a certain area.  Shields actively push creep out, while this technology simply slows its passage, but they're both aimed at buying time before creeper pushes through a certain area.

But the people pushing for time-freakiness seem to expect such game-breaking advantages that they need to tack on titan-class and massive costs to balance it.  I don't think it's going to be that useful.  It's a grandiose awesome concept, but that doesn't always translate into a useful concept.

EDIT: Ro has some ideas on how to improve the concept - as I said, it will need more before it's something worthy of a new titan class.  That's the direction you guys should move in, I think - how can this be made more interesting?  Right now, it's less interesting and useful, I think, than a titan that allowed you to manually paint fields for energy would be.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on January 21, 2013, 09:18:07 AM
Quote from: Kithros on January 21, 2013, 05:32:35 AM
Arguing that being able to slow down time would be pointless would be akin to calling CW2 repulsors or shields useless, or in more obscure cases saying that 'the start time on an emitter doesn't matter'.
Shields and repulsors are helpful if you still need to build up your economy. Shields are also helpful a millions of creeper are released in a short time or if you want to build a nullifier close to an emitter. It buys some time to build up your own economy or to kill the creeper economy (an enemy structure).

Quote from: lurkily on January 21, 2013, 08:34:54 AM
Quote from: J on January 21, 2013, 02:58:15 AMIf you have a continuous stream of tanks attacking you and you freeze 2 of them, they would start moving again with the next 2 tanks so you have twice as much tanks to kill for a short time.
And yet, you don't have more guns shooting at those four tanks.  If you've played TD games, you know that bunching up enemies are only useful for AoE weapons - for other weapons, it only makes it more likely one or two will begin to slip by.  However, the analogy fails at a certain point.  Due to the nature of creeper, it won't "Bunch up" like units in a tower defense being affected by a 'slow area'.  Creeper inherently spreads out.  I don't believe you'll see increased effectiveness from mortars.
Freezing an area for a short time still builds up creeper, it simply doesn't attack the player immediatly, but spread over the following ten minutes (so that's still ten minutes more creeper).

A titan that pulls creeper to the center of the explosion for a short amount of time can be very helpful (improved mortar/bertha efficiency). It doesn't release all creeper at once but the fields will weaken until they are gone. It has a lot of overlap with te feeze titan, it keeps creeper in place for a short amount of time, but this is helpful to increase efficiency of other units. I would suggest low build costs (80-120) and energy consumption about the same as the bertha for this unit.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 21, 2013, 09:23:37 AM
Quote from: J on January 21, 2013, 02:58:15 AM
If you have a continuous stream of tanks attacking you and you freeze 2 of them, they would start moving again with the next 2 tanks so you have twice as much tanks to kill for a short time.

Using this weapon against an emitter can be very powerful, since the creeper can't move away less creeper will be emitted (only if the AddCreeper command is not used).

Indeed. Yet, if slowing or stopping these two tanks allows you to destroy them (e.g. allowing a weapon with a too slow a rate of fire to fire an additional shot), rather than having them slip through, it turns out to be useful weapon.

As to the time distortion field holding up a bigger wave of creeper: This would only happen if the creeper had nowhere else to go. There is no reason, why it shouldn't spread around the field.

The main benefit this time distortion weapon would have over conventional weapons that are able to immitate its effects in large enough numbers is that its field can be deployed anywhere on the battlefield, regardless of where the generator is located. I understand that there most likely won't be time to include such a device, since it would require extensive testing regarding size of the field, duration of the effect, charging time and building and charging costs.

It is only after a number of these tests that you could really say wether or not the weapon would be useful.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 21, 2013, 02:14:37 PM
I think what I'd prefer to see is something more like a landmine - a region you prepare, perhaps with terraformers, that will slow creeper flow, like a slow-flow field.  The region would decay and lose effect with time, but it would be a handy 'tank trap' type of effect while it lasted.  And as part of the terraformer, it wouldn't require epic effect like a titan would.  (Not like terraformers aren't expensive on their own, though.)

It'd be a lot like laying out barbed wire to slow down infantry.  They'd cut through it and be unimpeded soon, but it would give you the time to blunt the initial assault.  Being associated with terraformers, they would be limited in where you could access the terrain to place them, but they needn't be on the scale of titan units, either.  Thus, expectations of epic-scale destruction wouldn't be frustrated, either.

J has a point - slow fields would be much more useful used against emitters, to soft-cap their production, rather than to be used in conjunction with PC's or mortars as a direct weapon.  Honestly, I'm not sure that's a use of them I'd like to see.  In the region of an emitter, altering the way creeper flows is much more influential than altering that flow on the front lines, or in the open.

Quote from: J on January 21, 2013, 09:18:07 AMFreezing an area for a short time still builds up creeper, it simply doesn't attack the player immediatly, but spread over the following ten minutes (so that's still ten minutes more creeper).
I don't think creeper will flow uphill because time flows more slowly.  I suspect it'll just flow around the killzone, instead of flowing into it or through it, until creeper is more elevated outside the killzone.  In other words, much like it normally acts, only slower.  (EDIT: Perhaps you're talking about applying the region directly to an emitter, rather than to a front line closer to your base?)
Quote from: Ronini on January 21, 2013, 09:23:37 AMIndeed. Yet, if slowing or stopping these two tanks allows you to destroy them (e.g. allowing a weapon with a too slow a rate of fire to fire an additional shot), rather than having them slip through, it turns out to be useful weapon
In the tower-defense comparison, this is true if waves are limited in size - for instance, maybe you only have to destroy 50 units in total and then you are scot free until the next wave.

This isn't true here - they never stop coming.  When there is no beginning or end to the flow of enemies, a TD is more about being able to kill more enemies per second than are introduced to the track per second.  If you can't attain that, you are waiting to lose.  The best use of slowdown in a TD like that is to create a killzone where enemies bunch up for AoE effectiveness.  Creeper actively resists bunching like that.

Also, keep in mind that there isn't a single discrete unit in creeper to fire a second shot at - the TD comparison is useful in certain things, but only goes so far.

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on January 21, 2013, 02:26:21 PM
I think we're diverging from one of the aims in this new thread, concision. Why write an essay when two sentences will suffice?

As a suggestion:
Map Of Eternity
Long Version:
Spoiler
This is a special map which doesn't end, instead you can scroll on forever into randomly generated spots of emitters and the like. These can be found on Dyson stars(a structure completely encompassing a star with massive, MASSIVE, surface area for civilization as well as huge capabilities to harness the solar energy. In this map type the difficulty will ramp up as you progress, you can also unlock technological advancements and artifacts, whats-more all those city-builders can create vast metropolises using their tools of trade riddled with energy efficiency and production(highly necessary when the difficulty ramps up. One option is to send waves of creeper in which emitters land, spores launch, and general disaster ensues on a location where you try to survive a exponentially difficult creeper assault for your remote new civilization. This map is for nice long plays, network-lovers, and intense game-play. Customization of difficulty, disable/enable terrain features, and the like are all available to the player.
[close]
Short version:Endless map with incremental difficulty of creeper assault, story-line based on Dyson sphere and attempted colonization. Customization terrain features and difficulty. Explore, unlock technology, and increase the defensive capabilities of your system.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on January 21, 2013, 02:39:42 PM
I am of the opinion that these interminable suggestion threads be curtailed. Rather have a thread for each suggestion that will have a natural lifespan.

If anyone wishes to harvest those threads and produce a synopsis, I will sticky the synopsis to the top of the board.

That way there can be a reference post maintained by an individual so inclined, and discrete conversations.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: BGMFH on January 21, 2013, 09:14:27 PM
I agree with Grauniad, this type of thread is hard to follow.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: gakm4 on January 22, 2013, 12:11:00 AM
My thoughts on a Titan class weapon
short/mid range weapon (bertha already has infinite range)
should wipe out large amounts of creeper (so as to justify it being a titan)
player targeted similar to the bertha
should fire from tower to player target destroying all creeper in its path
projectile should be shaped similar to a parenthesis
would be able to fire 3-4 shots from the ammo it had stored up (which would be about as much as the bertha)
could be set to use all shots with a 1 sec delay between or be player targeted for each shot
should fire through terrain killing creeper above and below its level

This weapon would be effective with your front line troops to get over difficult terrain if terp was not available or efficient. It would be an efficient way to remove large amounts of digitalis and place your towers there especially if there were AET in the area so you couldn't cut it with strafers.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on January 22, 2013, 10:51:10 AM
I have been watching everything and thought
Why not make I iPod/iPad/iPhone version.
I would creat a nice steady income which
Could then be used for future projects and
A fund for a promotion to steam green light
Like virgil surgested some time ago.

Just a surgestion.
Tornado
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on January 22, 2013, 11:14:28 AM
An ipad/iphone version would take another year of work for V and its pretty hard to give the player good control. CW2 for the ipad could work out very well but the work is about the same as a whole new game.
6 months before the official release BTD5 other programmers were already working on the portable version of the game which had been released december 2012 (after 18 months of programming).
Over 2-3 years I might want to try to create a portable version of CW2 (not including all features of course :P) but before that, I'll need a lot more experience.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 22, 2013, 11:32:30 AM
The CW games are very much mouse+keyboard games. I don't really see a way to retain the essential parts of CW's gameplay without having the possibility to hover with your cursor without clicking plus the game still being fun to play.

Even if there was a sensible way around this, there still would be the issue of screen size vs map size. Yes, you could have all sorts of zoom levels. But then you face the issue of unit size vs my big fat fingers.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on January 22, 2013, 12:12:45 PM
If we keep the right side for unit settings, build tabs and the pause/cancel button there's enough room for the map. Double tap for group selection and double tap & drag for drag build. Tap & drag is like moving the mouse with something selected. Tapping with a second finger while dragging cancels what you were doing. It are just those irritating things like group select and pausing that make it harder to play (and programming it so it is easy for the player). About zooming; no, just scrolling up and down (thats why I didn't say CW3 :P).
Since the iPad version won't come out this year (mayby in december...) and this is a CW3 topic, let's get back on topic
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 22, 2013, 12:55:20 PM
First: True,on tablets, there might be enough room. On a phone? No.

Second: I don't think you realize how much the cursor hovering ability gives to the games. There are tablets that you can connect to your computer an then write on it with a special pen. Try playing a CW game with one of these if you have a chance,to simulate touchscreen play. You'll see how much control this lacks.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on January 22, 2013, 06:57:59 PM
While I really like that idea Virgil is only one man. I mean sure he has Grauniad and Madmag, (and Channi I guess) But he's just one man doing almost all of the work. With a powerful project like the Creper World series he doesn't really have time or effort to incorporate an iPad/Phone/Pod game.

I will however say iPad controls for Creeper world would be great to more casual players. I barely ever actually use the keyboard when playing Creeper World, I simplified version of the selection controls in Creeper World definitely could work.

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on January 22, 2013, 07:29:11 PM
Quote from: tornado on January 22, 2013, 10:51:10 AM
I have been watching everything and thought
Why not make I iPod/iPad/iPhone version.
I would creat a nice steady income which
Could then be used for future projects and
A fund for a promotion to steam green light
Like virgil surgested some time ago.

Just a surgestion.
Tornado

Every game dev that is not thinking about the mobile market is not a game dev with a long-term future in mind. Having said that, it is not always easy to see how to port existing games to that environment.

CW3 is developed with Unity3D that can be ported to IOS and Android (at significant extra licensing cost to the developer). What remains is to resolve issues such as interaction, user interface, infrastructure and additional content, such as custom maps. All not insignificant hurdles.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 22, 2013, 10:22:12 PM
My opinion is that there should be no 'port' of a creeper game to mobile.  Any mobile creeper game should be designed, ground-up, to be used on a mobile device.  It may share many things with a particular CW game - it may even share code - but the design and the intent and the result should be something targeted from start to finish for a mobile device as a new game, not just "CW3 on a tablet".
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 23, 2013, 02:16:41 AM
Quote from: lurkily on January 22, 2013, 10:22:12 PM
My opinion is that there should be no 'port' of a creeper game to mobile.  Any mobile creeper game should be designed, ground-up, to be used on a mobile device.  It may share many things with a particular CW game - it may even share code - but the design and the intent and the result should be something targeted from start to finish for a mobile device as a new game, not just "CW3 on a tablet".

Hear, hear.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: MizInIA on January 23, 2013, 10:40:35 AM
noob here wanting to chime in on porting. I agree that direct porting is not the answer. While I would love a CW Mobile Version I think the control from any of the games would provide a frustrating experience on a pure touch screen device.

For example if CW1 was ported just building collectors would be frustrating trying to get them spaced correct. There would be lots of build and destroy while paused because your finger rocked and put it one space away from where you wanted it. However the drag to build we have seen from CW3 could eliminate that problem. But so could wireless technology from CW2. I used CW1 as an example because I feel the map size and shorter construct-able list fits the mobile environment better. CW2 would have to designate part of the screen to a scroll bar since it is side view and terrain can be destroyed, tapping on the screen to scroll could inadvertently mark blocks for destruction.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on January 23, 2013, 10:55:59 AM
CW2 normally also doesn't show you the whole map (unless it is a 22-height map)
Scrolling: use the bar the normally shows you the emitters, gateways and creeper per row as scrollbar (and put it on the left side of the screen). Still I think CW2 will be the best for CWM(obile). (Don't forget this is a CW3 board so discussions for mobile versions should go somewhere else, how about a 'general suggestions' board for suggestion about new games and forum improvements? or would that go to general discussion?).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: MapMaster on January 26, 2013, 08:16:11 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on January 22, 2013, 07:29:11 PM
Quote from: tornado on January 22, 2013, 10:51:10 AM
I have been watching everything and thought
Why not make I iPod/iPad/iPhone version.
I would creat a nice steady income which
Could then be used for future projects and
A fund for a promotion to steam green light
Like virgil surgested some time ago.

Just a surgestion.
Tornado

Every game dev that is not thinking about the mobile market is not a game dev with a long-term future in mind. Having said that, it is not always easy to see how to port existing games to that environment.

CW3 is developed with Unity3D that can be ported to IOS and Android (at significant extra licensing cost to the developer). What remains is to resolve issues such as interaction, user interface, infrastructure and additional content, such as custom maps. All not insignificant hurdles.


If you are going to do that, it might be a good idea to put it on the kindle store to get a larger audience.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 26, 2013, 08:28:41 PM
Does the Fire not have access to Google Play?  It would make sense for Amazon to cut out Google books and video, now that I consider it, and amazon has their own app store.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 02:14:52 AM
Hey all,
I just came up with this idea from watching an old blog post video (and partly from a new CW1 series I am planning on making).
In my series, there are these reactors, which I call "Force Reactors"
You'll know what I mean when I describe how they work if you know what the four fundamental forces are (gravity, strong/weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force(s) that play a role in subatomic particle interactions (yes, I am a bit of a geek :D)

(Note: this is the science I envisioned behind the reactor, not core gameplay mechanics. I just wished to share this)
Basically, the reactors are designed to use the difference of the fundamental forces to create something out of it (say, energy, or exotic matter). If, say, you are playing around with the strong nuclear force, and the gravitic constant is different (i envisioned martian gravity instead of earth-normal) then strange reactions occur inside, and through some science I am not going to describe here, strange types of matter or energy is formed. On its own (or whether through the application of normal matter to the strange matter) certain types of matter will annihlate normal matter, creating energy. Or, through certain procedures, the matter could be used in an industrial and/or commercial setting.

Now on to my ideas for in-game application:
Upon building the reactor, you can designate whether it produces energy, anti-creeper, ore, or other packets.
It takes energy to catalyze (start) the reactants and different amounts of energy to fuel the reaction until the final product is released. I figure since it creates strange matter that future resources should also be able to made in the reactor.
It can consume any packet type you wish and produce a packet type you want (or resource). Energy itself can be used as the reactant as well, at a high cost, or less packets and more energy can be used in a given reaction. The reactor would take a while to build and takes energy to maintain (the matter created is volatile, therefore energy shields are needed).
What do you guys think?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on January 27, 2013, 03:26:31 AM
hey

i have a kindle touch and it updates to slow for a game like creeper word
which has enough fast paced action to render a kindle
infective in play ing cw as you are dead before the screen loads
it is that slow.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 27, 2013, 05:51:02 AM
Quote from: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 02:14:52 AM
Hey all,
I just came up with this idea from watching an old blog post video (and partly from a new CW1 series I am planning on making).
In my series, there are these reactors, which I call "Force Reactors"
You'll know what I mean when I describe how they work if you know what the four fundamental forces are (gravity, strong/weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force(s) that play a role in subatomic particle interactions (yes, I am a bit of a geek :D)

(Note: this is the science I envisioned behind the reactor, not core gameplay mechanics. I just wished to share this)
Basically, the reactors are designed to use the difference of the fundamental forces to create something out of it (say, energy, or exotic matter). If, say, you are playing around with the strong nuclear force, and the gravitic constant is different (i envisioned martian gravity instead of earth-normal) then strange reactions occur inside, and through some science I am not going to describe here, strange types of matter or energy is formed. On its own (or whether through the application of normal matter to the strange matter) certain types of matter will annihlate normal matter, creating energy. Or, through certain procedures, the matter could be used in an industrial and/or commercial setting.

Now on to my ideas for in-game application:
Upon building the reactor, you can designate whether it produces energy, anti-creeper, ore, or other packets.
It takes energy to catalyze (start) the reactants and different amounts of energy to fuel the reaction until the final product is released. I figure since it creates strange matter that future resources should also be able to made in the reactor.
It can consume any packet type you wish and produce a packet type you want (or resource). Energy itself can be used as the reactant as well, at a high cost, or less packets and more energy can be used in a given reaction. The reactor would take a while to build and takes energy to maintain (the matter created is volatile, therefore energy shields are needed).
What do you guys think?

If I understood correctly, you are proposing a form of marketplace, where you can trade one resource into another. While I like the basic idea (I can think of settings where it would be really great to convert ore to energy) I doubt the device would be worth the trouble. Especially if you consider that the game has only three resources (energy, ore and refined ore (AC)), really.  Ammo and build packets are energy, only coloured differently to mark their different purpose. But there is no storage of ammo or build packets that would require conversion to something if you had one in excess.
So, the biggest benefit (apart from ore<->energy conversion on maps where you either have a lot of space, but little to no ore, or lots of ore, but little space for collectors/reactors) of your reactors would be that they are able to cut short distribution distance, and this would only work if the reactor could take energy without receiving packets (collectors and reactors don't send energy packets back to the CN, do they?) and turn this energy into ammo, build, ac packets. Then they'd work as dedicated command nodes. If they are limited to only being able to produce one type of packet, a small size would be justified. By this, you could place them were a CN wouldn't fit, so moving one of those closer to the action wouldn't be possible.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 27, 2013, 11:33:06 AM
There have been posts here and there about a potential titan for converting ore to AC or vice-versa.  It's my opinion that conversion like that should come at rip-off values.  Even though a mapmaker can disable it, when permitted, the mapmaker is permitting the player to transcend the limits of the map's geography.  I feel like that should be expensive.  

Quote from: tornado on January 27, 2013, 03:26:31 AMi have a kindle touch and it updates to slow for a game like creeper word
which has enough fast paced action to render a kindle
infective in play ing cw as you are dead before the screen loads
it is that slow.
I don't think he was talking about the kindle-kindle.  He probably meant the kindle fire.  That would make sense, since it arose out of a discussion of android/iPhone ports, and the Fire is based on android.

Quote from: Ronini on January 27, 2013, 05:51:02 AMBut there is no storage of ammo or build packets that would require conversion to something if you had one in excess.
Keep in mind - we haven't seen the tech mechanics yet.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 03:08:56 PM
What I thought (and meant originally) was that it would be useful if there are no available resource assets for conventional gathering of that resource.(i'm talking no ore deposits in a map maybe, or not enough/nearly no workable space to build reactors).
Last night I thought up a different way for distribution of packets: give the reactor an AI that produces certain packets by calculating from a number of factors which are desperately needed where (basically, it takes factors hidden in the code, and calculates that ammo packets will be needed more then build packets due to a wave of creeper surrounding the ridge in the near future.)
Basically, a priority control function. You can give it the option to burn every packet that comes through it's network connection (maybe not EVERY packet... needs a bit of work I can see) to get a more efficient distribution of resources.  
That might fit under a new unit, but I think it would be great for those who are casual and don't like or know how to micromanage efficiently. And maybe it will make fighting more complex enemies be well-balanced (think of CPRL towers...)

I figure my original post wasn't overly neat, so i'll summarize some ideas for it here:

- The reactor requires input of energy to power energy fields (so it doesn't destroy itself from the reactions)
- You can select what type of resource(s) to input and what resources you can get out of the reactor. I suppose applying different levels of efficiency (say, every two units of ammo packets makes 1 ore packet or 1 building packet, 1 anti-creeper packet makes 2 ore packets or 3 ammo packets, etc) would make for an interesting gameplay mechanic.
- All packet types (energy as well, at a high cost) can be used as the reactants. Energy must also be used to catalyze (start) and maintain certain reactions (to prevent the reactor from making games too easy/ being too overpowered)
-It can be moved, and it will take a moderate time to build (maybe as long as shields take to build as of the last blog update)

That's all I have for now.

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 27, 2013, 03:33:22 PM
Quote from: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 03:08:56 PM
- The reactor requires input of energy to power energy fields (so it doesn't destroy itself from the reactions)
- You can select what type of resource(s) to input and what resources you can get out of the reactor. I suppose applying different levels of efficiency (say, every two units of ammo packets makes 1 ore packet or 1 building packet, 1 anti-creeper packet makes 2 ore packets or 3 ammo packets, etc) would make for an interesting gameplay mechanic.
- All packet types (energy as well, at a high cost) can be used as the reactants. Energy must also be used to catalyze (start) and maintain certain reactions (to prevent the reactor from making games too easy/ being too overpowered)
-It can be moved, and it will take a moderate time to build (maybe as long as shields take to build as of the last blog update)

That's all I have for now.



Questions for Kingo:
1. Do you think of a form of energy packets or should the required energy come directly out of the pool of stored energy (i.e. create demand/starvation)?
2. If the reactor's costs (setting up and running) are that high, why use it? Doesnt sound like it would generate a gain (apart from creating ore where there is none)

Question for all:
1. Is there a difference in any way other than colour between ammo and build packets? Does the creation of an ammo packet demand less energy than the creation of a build packet? I'm sure it does not in CW2 and dig packets are also the same.


I'm intrigued by the energy > ore/AC and ore/AC > energy conversions. Every other conversion does not make any sense. (Unless, of course, build packets do cost more than ammo packets. Let's say, creating one build packet were to cause the same energy demand as creating 3 ammo packets. Then a unit that can create a build packet from 2 ammo packets would provide a gain. But not if it used another ammo packets worth of energy to keep it running)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 03:41:09 PM
I believe it should recieve energy packets, like shields and terps. The energy will be used to maintain/start a reaction, I guess the energy shield idea isn't so good after all.
However, I believe that taking a build packet and turning it into ammo packets will only cost as much as 1 build packet.
Probably the reactor would eat up different amounts of energy from the stored energy in different reactions
(To make a building packet from 2 ammo packets, it would take 1/2 as much energy as the other way around - something like that).
Just a question, does the creation of packets make the energy bar (on the CN) dip 1 pixel (or fractional number to divide the length of the bar)? Or does it have a more complex system (1 energy packet is 1 unit of energy, while reactors/collectors may produce 1.925, giving a net gain of .925, etc, or a certain number of energy units is required to make a packet type)

The reactor isn't designed to provide a net gain (except for the ore where there is none situation), but to turn certain packet types into other types and help with micromanaging. That's what I envision it as of now.
And (if the situation is/was ever feasable) turn packet types into energy (ore most probably).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 27, 2013, 03:53:43 PM
Quote from: Ronini on January 27, 2013, 03:33:22 PMiQuestion for all:
1. Is there a difference in any way other than colour between ammo and build packets? Does the creation of an ammo packet demand less energy than the creation of a build packet? I'm sure it does not in CW2 and dig packets are also the same.
There is no practical difference between them except for where they're going.  They each signify 1 energy.  The fact that one is ammo and one is construction is meaningless, because they cannot be retasked from one project to another.  In effect, there is not really any such thing as a general-purpose ammo packet.  There is an ammo packet for Pulse Cannon # 12, and it has no more interchangability with ammo packets headed to other pulse cannons than it does with other build packets.  There is no process I know of in which it could be received by a different unit.

Guppies are a good example that a construction and build packet are not as dissimilar as some seem to think.
Quote from: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 03:41:09 PMHowever, I believe that taking a build packet and turning it into ammo packets will only cost as much as 1 build packet.
Guppies do the reverse for free already.

QuoteJust a question, does the creation of packets make the energy bar (on the CN) dip 1 pixel (or fractional number to divide the length of the bar)? Or does it have a more complex system (1 energy packet is 1 unit of energy, while reactors/collectors may produce 1.925, giving a net gain of .925, etc, or a certain number of energy units is required to make a packet type)
1 packet is always 1 energy, as far as I know.

QuoteLast night I thought up a different way for distribution of packets: give the reactor an AI that produces certain packets by calculating from a number of factors which are desperately needed where (basically, it takes factors hidden in the code, and calculates that ammo packets will be needed more then build packets due to a wave of creeper surrounding the ridge in the near future.)
That sounds like something I've come across many times in my history of designing - for games, for game mods, for graphics . . . there are some things that are intriguing to design, but not particularly exciting to play with.  That strikes be as one of them.  

I think it would be much more effective to fold this unit into a CN.  Since the behavior can be confusing for a new and casual player, simply granting greater efficiency merely by having this unit exist would simplify it and make its purpose easier to understand just by viewing its operation.

I think, though, that it would be a lot simpler and straightforward for a casual player that doesn't read instructions, to just use tech upgrades to supply greater efficiency.  This process of building a unit that stores energy, then dispatches it with greater efficiency seems to be a very good way to

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 04:03:40 PM
But guppies are meant to transfer packets to outposts... not as a part of the network infrastructure.
And guppies only produce one ammo packet from one build packet, while Reactors can do more then that.
Reactors are more complex in the conversion process and involve more factors.
If this were to be implemented into a command node, then I think it should be an add-on that requires a good amount of building packets (rather then linking up with an upgrade in CW1) and require a constant drain on virtual, not physical energy (i.e. the bar now dips below a certain point and doesn't go up unless it is removed, or deactivated, since it is an add-on. Or maybe give the option to differentiate between virtual and physical energy (packets, in the case of physical energy).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 27, 2013, 05:18:57 PM
Quote from: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 04:03:40 PM
But guppies are meant to transfer packets to outposts... not as a part of the network infrastructure.
And guppies only produce one ammo packet from one build packet, while Reactors can do more then that.
Reactors are more complex in the conversion process and involve more factors.
If this were to be implemented into a command node, then I think it should be an add-on that requires a good amount of building packets (rather then linking up with an upgrade in CW1) and require a constant drain on virtual, not physical energy (i.e. the bar now dips below a certain point and doesn't go up unless it is removed, or deactivated, since it is an add-on. Or maybe give the option to differentiate between virtual and physical energy (packets, in the case of physical energy).
We need another name than reactors, to avoid confusion with the unit that already exists.

There are a few ground assumptions that often help me deal with casual players - They will not play tutorials, they will not read instructions, and they will not play a game that makes them do homework to play it properly.  This is not true of every casual player (and probably not typical of most players on the forums) but it's a good set of assumptions to operate on when you're trying to capture the casual market.

This is why I think this should be folded into an efficiency upgrade in the tech tree.  In the long run, it doesn't provide the player gameplay, and it doesn't ask them to make any choices.  It might be fun to watch it run for a while, but after that, it's just there for extra efficiency.  If that's all we're aiming for, we don't need that kind of complexity.

After all, that's what you're designing, right?  The conversion reactor can take in one packet, and produce 1.5 packets of a particular type, yes?  It's basically a very complex efficiency upgrade.  It changes some dynamics - for instance, it consumes the energy before (possibly long before) it dispatches the packet.  But at its' most simplified, it's about efficiency.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 07:09:31 PM
I figure a new name will be "Resource Processing Unit" or something like that ;)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on January 29, 2013, 01:59:35 PM
I ment a kindle touch

The kindle fire is available only as a import
From America s I don't have one
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on January 29, 2013, 02:08:00 PM
Quote from: tornado on January 29, 2013, 01:59:35 PM
I ment a kindle touch

The kindle fire is available only as a import
From America s I don't have one

Hello Tornado.

While the Kindle Touch may support flash (I wouldn't know, I have a Kindle Fire), none of the CW1 or CW2 games will play very well on a tablet. We've never tested it and the interface is not suited to touch-based devices.

CW3 is developed in Unity and would require a special developer license (that isn't cheapp) to also develop for Android (which the Kindle Fire line is based on). We would not target any development for the e-ink devices at all. I doubt it is even possible.

Since we also don't consider the CW3 user interface suitable for touch at the moment, it is also unlikely that the CW3 game will make an appearance on an Android-based device.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 29, 2013, 03:30:03 PM
Quote from: tornado on January 29, 2013, 01:59:35 PM
I ment a kindle touch

The kindle fire is available only as a import
From America s I don't have one
Yes, but MapMaster was the one who suggested the Kindle store, and I believe he meant the fire.  The kindle readers don't have the screen responsiveness to support a game of this nature.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kronokill on January 29, 2013, 09:59:18 PM
I think the Creeper performs exactly like I would want it to all I would like to see added to the game are more weapons to use.
The only weapon I could think of at the moment would be a Creeper bait bomb you could build and then launch into the creeper.
It could lure the creeper towards it for a limited amount of time and then either die and let the creeper get back to creeping or it
could explode and kill all the creeper that piled up around it. Maybe you could set it to only lure creeper that reaches a certain
elevation to help keep it from overcoming a certain wall or defense.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kronokill on January 30, 2013, 12:43:38 PM
One more suggestion I think could be cool would be when your in the map editor you could be able to create 2 versions of your map that would switch between each other every certain amount of time. With this you could make some walls disappear to let some creeper through and then reblock it off or lower terrain to let some creeper into zones that were safe before.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 30, 2013, 12:52:46 PM
1) A Creeper Magnet (Bomb) would be fun. I, for one, would be looking forward to some device like this.

2) I'm not sure in how far instantaneous changes to the terrain will be possible, but what you describe can be done (subject to the elevation changing speed) with the CRPL Tower. You can add fancy triggers and all, too.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on January 30, 2013, 01:34:37 PM
Quote from: Kronokill on January 30, 2013, 12:43:38 PM
One more suggestion I think could be cool would be when your in the map editor you could be able to create 2 versions of your map that would switch between each other every certain amount of time. With this you could make some walls disappear to let some creeper through and then reblock it off or lower terrain to let some creeper into zones that were safe before.

This can mostly be accomplished (currently) by using the CRPL tower.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on January 30, 2013, 07:07:45 PM
While this does seem cool this can be accomplished with shields if you want. Force the creeper into a choke point then charge forward with shields. This may be albeit  more energy expensive but it can certainly accomplish the same goal.

Not to mention Berthas fire excellent bombing projectiles.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kronokill on January 30, 2013, 11:05:09 PM
I have another idea I would like to see on map creation is the ability to prevent certain structures you create from moving kind of like you can do with Odin City on CW1. It could add more possibilities to the maps people make (mainly I would like this because the last map I created and submitted failed horribly because there was an exploit I didn't notice that would have been easier to prevent if I had this feature).
Sorry if I'm bugging anyone by posting to often I just love this series.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 31, 2013, 03:23:01 AM
Chawe800: No. You can't. At least not quite the same. A device that pulls creeper towards itself from all sides is different to a shield that pushes it in just one general direction.

Kronokill: I agree. Such an option would be useful.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: JH on January 31, 2013, 10:36:08 AM
The ability for the player to interact directly with the CRPL cores, like giving them orders and moving them around.
Heck, let's take it a step further and allow map makers to use them to create units the player can build and move around themselves!

I am a bit of a dreamer, I know...
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Michionlion on January 31, 2013, 02:39:55 PM
Quote from: JH on January 31, 2013, 10:36:08 AM
The ability for the player to interact directly with the CRPL cores, like giving them orders and moving them around.
Heck, let's take it a step further and allow map makers to use them to create units the player can build and move around themselves!

I am a bit of a dreamer, I know...

A way to make a gui or menu of somekind, or even just able to know when the user clicked on the core, would be really awesome.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 31, 2013, 03:22:47 PM
I have to say, I think this would take it just a bit far. Sounds like it won't be CW anymore. I.e. you probably could do a (very very basic) jump'n'run with this. Well, maybe not, but you definitely could create your own units and titans for your maps. All (okay, most of) the ideas for additional units that were posted here could be created. If that's what virgil wants, okay with me.
I just hope there will be some form of filter that let's you select and hide maps that crpl / altered unit properties / custom units, etc. (all of these should be different, not one, option)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 31, 2013, 05:52:39 PM
You might be able to make a platformer, but it'd have to be done with controls that exist already - I haven't seen anything to suggest that you'd be able to alter the response to player controls, or add new controls.  (Like space to make a figure made of AC jump over a creeper obstacle, or whatever.)

It'd be possible enough to make such a system, but very difficult to devise a control scheme.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on January 31, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
Yeah. Went a little overboard with the exaggeration there. But still,...
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on January 31, 2013, 06:32:33 PM
Quote from: Ronini on January 31, 2013, 06:15:52 PM
Yeah. Went a little overboard with the exaggeration there. But still,...
No - the capabilities for the expression are there, even if the controls aren't quite.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on February 03, 2013, 03:44:41 AM
Quote from: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 03:08:56 PM
What I thought (and meant originally) was that it would be useful if there are no available resource assets for conventional gathering of that resource.(i'm talking no ore deposits in a map maybe, or not enough/nearly no workable space to build reactors).
Last night I thought up a different way for distribution of packets: give the reactor an AI that produces certain packets by calculating from a number of factors which are desperately needed where (basically, it takes factors hidden in the code, and calculates that ammo packets will be needed more then build packets due to a wave of creeper surrounding the ridge in the near future.)
Basically, a priority control function. You can give it the option to burn every packet that comes through it's network connection (maybe not EVERY packet... needs a bit of work I can see) to get a more efficient distribution of resources.  
That might fit under a new unit, but I think it would be great for those who are casual and don't like or know how to micromanage efficiently. And maybe it will make fighting more complex enemies be well-balanced (think of CPRL towers...)

I figure my original post wasn't overly neat, so i'll summarize some ideas for it here:

- The reactor requires input of energy to power energy fields (so it doesn't destroy itself from the reactions)
- You can select what type of resource(s) to input and what resources you can get out of the reactor. I suppose applying different levels of efficiency (say, every two units of ammo packets makes 1 ore packet or 1 building packet, 1 anti-creeper packet makes 2 ore packets or 3 ammo packets, etc) would make for an interesting gameplay mechanic.
- All packet types (energy as well, at a high cost) can be used as the reactants. Energy must also be used to catalyze (start) and maintain certain reactions (to prevent the reactor from making games too easy/ being too overpowered)
-It can be moved, and it will take a moderate time to build (maybe as long as shields take to build as of the last blog update)

That's all I have for now.



what ifthe reaction element was creeper.ding!combined with the pulveriser idea from elier it could be an ideal adition to cw3.

just a sugestion

tornado
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 03, 2013, 03:42:20 PM
Ouch.  Quotewall.

Quote from: tornado on February 03, 2013, 03:44:41 AM
Quote from: Kingo on January 27, 2013, 03:08:56 PMan AI that produces certain packets by calculating from a number of factors which are desperately needed where (basically, it takes factors hidden in the code, and calculates that ammo packets will be needed more then build packets due to a wave of creeper surrounding the ridge in the near future.)
what ifthe reaction element was creeper.ding!combined with the pulveriser idea from elier it could be an ideal adition to cw3.
Reaction element?  Explain?

I've said a lot about this one already . . . all I'll add is that I like the idea of an conversion unit between AC/Energy or energy/AC more than I like the idea of an energy-powered energy factory.

The 'pulverizer' (That name really deserves to be on a more destructive unit) was a creeper-powered reactor, right?  First, I don't see why we need so many reactor-type units.  Second, I don't see how there'd be any interplay.  They both serve the same function, without supporting each other at all.  It's like nickels and dimes - you might have twenty of one or ten of the other, but no matter how you add them up, you never get anything but twenty cents.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on February 07, 2013, 08:11:20 PM
First off, 20 nickles plus 10 dimes is $2 and 20 dimes plus 10 nickles is $2.50. How did you get 20 cents?

Second, reactor-type things of CW3 seem to be at a good enough peak if you ask me. And energy and packets have so much potentially confusing interplay based on some of what I haveseen on this site that it should stay where it is with the packet/energy features of the guppy.

BTW, if I can ever find a time when I will not be too busy or too distracted, I may actually see those blog clips with sound and catch up with the changes. Being in the college library frequently means I cannot play them with sound.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on February 08, 2013, 02:07:52 AM
Such a contraption also has the benefit of bolstering your remote forces a while longer even if guppy supplies fail.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 08, 2013, 06:09:26 AM
A forward base supplied by 2-3 guppies will, eventually, see all of them in flight at the same time, as they aren't drawn from evenly.  Having the buildings in that base preferentially draw power from a guppy that has a partial load before they start drawing upon a guppy with a full load would solve this problem.  Alternatively, I'd like to see the return of the Storage unit as a local battery for forward bases, so that you could buffer against those times when the in-game logic puts all of your guppies in the air.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 08, 2013, 07:54:35 AM
Quote from: 4xC on February 07, 2013, 08:11:20 PM
BTW, if I can ever find a time when I will not be too busy or too distracted, I may actually see those blog clips with sound and catch up with the changes. Being in the college library frequently means I cannot play them with sound.

There is this strange, new-fangled invention called "earphones".... Some call them "headphones", even...
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 08, 2013, 08:00:58 AM
I doubt library computers have speakers/sound card/headphone connection.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 08, 2013, 08:26:03 AM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 08, 2013, 08:00:58 AM
I doubt library computers have speakers/sound card/headphone connection.

It is true that they don't have speakers, but last time I checked my library (and about 7 years ago when I checked out a computer room at Uni) they did indeed have sockets to plug in earphones - working sockets at that. You could even borrow headphones at the front desk. These days sound is on most motherboards... at least some fairly basic sound ability - such as 7.1 channel sound. :)

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 08, 2013, 08:41:52 AM
What is this magical device you call a headphone?
Can you talk to others in your own private conversation?

P.S. I think Lurkily was referring to 20 nickels = 1$ and 10 dimes =1$
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on February 08, 2013, 10:36:04 AM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 08, 2013, 08:41:52 AM
P.S. I think Lurkily was referring to 20 nickels = 1$ and 10 dimes =1$

Then how do you get 20 cents?

Quote from: Grauniad on February 08, 2013, 08:26:03 AM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 08, 2013, 08:00:58 AM
I doubt library computers have speakers/sound card/headphone connection.
It is true that they don't have speakers, but last time I checked my library (and about 7 years ago when I checked out a computer room at Uni) they did indeed have sockets to plug in earphones - working sockets at that. You could even borrow headphones at the front desk. These days sound is on most motherboards... at least some fairly basic sound ability - such as 7.1 channel sound. :)

If the library I am reffering to has headphones to lend, perhaps I will look into it.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 08, 2013, 11:15:14 AM
Quote from: 4xC on February 08, 2013, 10:36:04 AM

If the library I am reffering to has headphones to lend, perhaps I will look into it.

It's not as if a pair of your own will break the bank - note free shipping as well.

(http://images10.newegg.com/ProductImageCompressAll300/26-630-023-03.jpg) (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=26-630-023)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: RedVenom on February 08, 2013, 04:42:29 PM
1. A possibility to change the length of the auto build function.

When you have to collect a lot of energy on a small area, it might be useful.
Because with one space more you can build 2 other structures between two collectors and
use the space best


2. A hotkey or similar so you just can build in range of the network.

in hectic situations you do not have to look for the right position for weapons, but just target the general direction and build.
It could also help to build collector-networks on mountains.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 08, 2013, 05:28:32 PM
1. Probably too CPU intensive to incorporate in the game. Also I find that some things really take the challenge and human aspect of stuff like Creeper World.

2.Magical Pause button fixes all your problems.

4xC: I don't know  :P  2 dimes and 4 nickels add up to 20 cents.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 08, 2013, 10:05:01 PM
Quote from: 4xC on February 07, 2013, 08:11:20 PMFirst off, 20 nickles plus 10 dimes is $2 and 20 dimes plus 10 nickles is $2.50. How did you get 20 cents?

Second, reactor-type things of CW3 seem to be at a good enough peak if you ask me. And energy and packets have so much potentially confusing interplay based on some of what I haveseen on this site that it should stay where it is with the packet/energy features of the guppy.
Aheh heh . . . I began to write a different equation at first . . .then I changed the monetary unit and rewrote the equation, but didn't rewrite the result, apparently.  The point was, 20 of one OR ten of the other.  Not "and".  20 nickels, 10 dimes, what's the difference?

Packet/energy features of the guppy have gone away, and have been gone for some time.  Check the options visible when V uses guppies in the video - they've been gone for some time.  I think we agree here, though.  Exactly what I said, basically, we don't need ten forms of reactor.
Quote from: Mr.H on February 08, 2013, 02:07:52 AMSuch a contraption also has the benefit of bolstering your remote forces a while longer even if guppy supplies fail.
It seems to me that building a couple more reactors or a guppy pad on the remote network to act as a buffer would have the same effect.

I don't think I like the idea of producing packets from any resource without having to pass through a CN first.
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 08, 2013, 06:09:26 AM
A forward base supplied by 2-3 guppies will, eventually, see all of them in flight at the same time, as they aren't drawn from evenly.  Having the buildings in that base preferentially draw power from a guppy that has a partial load before they start drawing upon a guppy with a full load would solve this problem.  Alternatively, I'd like to see the return of the Storage unit as a local battery for forward bases, so that you could buffer against those times when the in-game logic puts all of your guppies in the air.
That's why I suggested above, using an on-site guppy.  Build a guppy pad at the remote network, with a destination right next to the pad.  The goal is to have the guns draw from that guppy, while the guppies making longer trips from a CN refuel that guppy's pad.  It provides a buffer so there is never more than a moment's interruption in packet flow.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 09, 2013, 05:53:08 AM
Quote from: lurkily on February 08, 2013, 10:05:01 PMThat's why I suggested above, using an on-site guppy.  Build a guppy pad at the remote network, with a destination right next to the pad.  The goal is to have the guns draw from that guppy, while the guppies making longer trips from a CN refuel that guppy's pad.  It provides a buffer so there is never more than a moment's interruption in packet flow.
That sounds like it'd work, but it's an ugly, kludgy fix to a simple problem.  Allowing a Buffer or Storage structure to be built at a forward base is simple and elegant, and doesn't put a firm line in the soil between the "casual" crowd and people who've figured out the little ways in which you can make the system misbehave.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on February 09, 2013, 06:12:34 AM
This depends on the way the guppy is introduced. If there was a mission that introduces the guppy as a storage device, there wouldn't be a problem for casual players. A designated storage unit would still be more elegant, though (it would take up half the space a guppy would (port + landing spot))

Then again, in all honesty, how often do you build storage devices in CW1 or upgrade storage in CW2 (because you need to, and not because you have the technytes left over)?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 09, 2013, 07:27:37 AM
Quote from: Ronini on February 09, 2013, 06:12:34 AM
Then again, in all honesty, how often do you build storage devices in CW1 or upgrade storage in CW2 (because you need to, and not because you have the technytes left over)?

In CW1: on every map that require more than 10-15 weapons:
- it increases the max output of Odin City from 20 to 32(!).
- when you move a couple of units at the same time (so they won't fire), you will have gained back the cost for a storage unit in no time (because the excess energy is stored instead of lost).

In CW2: also on larger maps that require more weapons:
- for movement (as described above)
- extend ore storage to be able to mine ahead when I want to use more makers than I have ore deposits.
- to have a buffer in situations that my weapons are idle. When I break into a chamber for instance, my weapons will fire more often, but only for maybe 30 seconds. Having some storage prevents the need of building more reactors for these situations (and saves space).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 09, 2013, 10:23:15 AM
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 09, 2013, 05:53:08 AM
Quote from: lurkily on February 08, 2013, 10:05:01 PMThat's why I suggested above, using an on-site guppy.  Build a guppy pad at the remote network, with a destination right next to the pad.  The goal is to have the guns draw from that guppy, while the guppies making longer trips from a CN refuel that guppy's pad.  It provides a buffer so there is never more than a moment's interruption in packet flow.
That sounds like it'd work, but it's an ugly, kludgy fix to a simple problem.  Allowing a Buffer or Storage structure to be built at a forward base is simple and elegant, and doesn't put a firm line in the soil between the "casual" crowd and people who've figured out the little ways in which you can make the system misbehave.
It is kludgy - but it works right now.  I'm not 100% sure we don't already have too many units.  Also, something like this would be abused, and packet spam is a road that leads to performance crashes.  One of the things that increases that burden is to have many sources for packets.

Perhaps as a secondary mode of operation for guppies - but the guppy has already lost modes due to complexity, so I'm not sure we'd be successful in seeking that.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on February 09, 2013, 01:10:47 PM
Well, now, that's an interesting idea.
Here's a less packet-spammy alternative: some way to increase the ammo capacity of the units themselves. An upgrade, maybe? That would not make processor burdens, while still achieving the result you want.

Anyways, on to another idea which will go in spoiler so you don't have to look at it if you don't want to:
Airship!(s)
Spoiler

Basic Idea: A unit that just floats there, kinda like Thor did. Being afloat, it is immune to Creeper, though Spores can still target it. To balance this, it requires packets to stay afloat, or at least do its thing. Running out of ammo may lead to explosions.

Probably not actually an airship, but hey.

Here are some potential ideas for what such a unit might do. Since we already have plenty of units, you only really need to pick one.

1. Linking Balloon: Simply acts as a network node that happens to be afloat. Useful for bridging gaps and such, but needs ammo to link.
2. Combat Balloon: Attacks with a dinky little weapon of some kind (probably Pulse Cannon-type).  Not as powerful as a ground-based turret, but the floatyness makes it easier to place and harder to take out. You can also hide your infrastructure behind a wall and then throw some of these over it to act as forward defense.
3. Barrage Balloon: A cheap anti-Spore defense with limited range. Possibly sacrificial.
4. Spotting Balloon: Increases the effectiveness of weapons firing at/in it's range somehow.

And one Titan suggestion, which has the working title of Kirov (not after the C&C 3 thing at all!).

5. Kirov?: A big, Titan-class airship. Has a large ammo capacity, and may be able to be directly refueled in-flight by Packet Guppies. Moves quite slowly, though. It has two main functions: One, it has some sort of heavy anti-ground weapon (bombs and/or Pulse Cannons). The weapon can be toggled off to conserve ammo if need be. Two, it can supply things like a Guppy. It can be used to spearhead an aerial assault, since it pretty much encapsulates the usual tactic of 'air raid, then land forces and supply with Guppies'. Aside from that, you can use it as a heavy air assault unit, or just as a floating defensive platform.

When it runs out of ammo, it either a): goes down in a particularly dramatic ball of fire or b): lands and hopes it doesn't die before it can be refueled.
[close]
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 09, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
I personally I want to see a suicidal vacuum balloon. Send it deep inside creeper, activate it, and watch it suck creeper into itself for like 15 seconds and then explode causing the player to distribute the creeper to other less pressurized places.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on February 09, 2013, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 09, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
I personally I want to see a suicidal vacuum balloon. Send it deep inside creeper, activate it, and watch it suck creeper into itself for like 15 seconds and then explode causing the player to distribute the creeper to other less pressurized places.

Sounds neat, but how useful would it be, really?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 09, 2013, 03:42:38 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 09, 2013, 02:57:37 PM
I personally I want to see a suicidal vacuum balloon. Send it deep inside creeper, activate it, and watch it suck creeper into itself for like 15 seconds and then explode causing the player to distribute the creeper to other less pressurized places.

I'd love to see this too!

Quote from: Twi on February 09, 2013, 03:26:59 PM
Sounds neat, but how useful would it be, really?

Good question! All that Creeper packed together for a while..... Doesn't seem useful at all....
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Lirianer on February 09, 2013, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Twi on February 09, 2013, 03:26:59 PM
Sounds neat, but how useful would it be, really?

Maybe to kill it faster with blasters?, or at least to gain a little more time.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on February 09, 2013, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 09, 2013, 03:42:38 PM

Quote from: Twi on February 09, 2013, 03:26:59 PM
Sounds neat, but how useful would it be, really?

Good question! All that Creeper packed together for a while..... Doesn't seem useful at all....

Ow! Ow! Ow! That sarcasm! So sharp! Ow! I give up! Uncle! Spare meeee!
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 09, 2013, 03:55:13 PM
Well timed Bertha shots,
Mortar shelling zone,
Recedes the creeper on the front line allowing for a quick push to establish a better position.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 09, 2013, 04:00:41 PM
Quote from: Twi on February 09, 2013, 03:47:17 PM
Ow! Ow! Ow! That sarcasm! So sharp! Ow! I give up! Uncle! Spare meeee!

Sorry dear Twi! :P
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on February 09, 2013, 04:04:48 PM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 09, 2013, 04:00:41 PM
Sorry dear Twi! :P
It's fine, that WAS a pretty stupid statement anyways. :P
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 09, 2013, 04:05:49 PM
We're all just a big happy family.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 09, 2013, 04:43:08 PM
Quote from: Ronini on February 09, 2013, 06:12:34 AM
Then again, in all honesty, how often do you build storage devices in CW1 or upgrade storage in CW2 (because you need to, and not because you have the technytes left over)?
On pretty much any map that involves bursts of demand for resources.  It may be my playstyle, but I've got a tendancy to do things like stack up a bunch of blasters and missiles near an area, then remove the wall blocking my lines of fire.  There's a huge surge in demand for the first few seconds of that, and with the default 20 energy storage, I'd almost immediately be running a deficit economy.  Storage is dirt cheap (3 technytes gets me 100, rather than 20) and just makes things go more smoothly.

I think Lurkily's got a good idea with giving Guppies a "buffer" mode (fly to a location and just stay there, collect packets if they're available on the network, distribute packets if they're not).  It'd keep all of the functions required for remote operations on one unit, and wouldn't look nearly as silly as a Guppy flying to a spot immediately next to it's landing pad.  Also solves the issue of what happens when your "buffer" guppy isn't fully charged when all the "supply" guppies leave the base.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on February 09, 2013, 04:57:47 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 09, 2013, 04:05:49 PM
We're all just a big happy family.

I can agree with that mate(!)

And since I'm posting here's an idea
You take a pulse canons shots and you fill
Them with anti-creeper.
Also airship idea awesome.
Could drop ant-creeper bombs
And possibly a superwepon al in one.

Just a suggestion

Tornado

Ps:you can attach cw3 files to these posts
Why!!!!!!!!!!no one has it yet! No sanity!
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Lirianer on February 09, 2013, 05:13:18 PM
Quote from: tornado on February 09, 2013, 04:57:47 PM

I can agree with that mate(!)

And since I'm posting here's an idea
You take a pulse canons shots and you fill
Them with anti-creeper.
Also airship idea awesome.
Could drop ant-creeper bombs
And possibly a superwepon al in one.

Just a suggestion

Tornado

Ps:you can attach cw3 files to these posts
Why!!!!!!!!!!no one has it yet! No sanity!

About the blasters shooting anti-creeper, your asnwer are Sprayers (http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/12/dungeon-novice/)

About the airship, it's already done. Bombers (http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/pict-of-the-week-spice/). (All those red airships just deployed AC bombs.)

Hope you check the rest of the blog :)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on February 09, 2013, 05:16:57 PM
Quote from: Lirianer on February 09, 2013, 05:13:18 PM
Quote from: tornado on February 09, 2013, 04:57:47 PM

I can agree with that mate(!)

And since I'm posting here's an idea
You take a pulse canons shots and you fill
Them with anti-creeper.
Also airship idea awesome.
Could drop ant-creeper bombs
And possibly a superwepon al in one.

Just a suggestion

Tornado

Ps:you can attach cw3 files to these posts
Why!!!!!!!!!!no one has it yet! No sanity!

About the blasters shooting anti-creeper, your asnwer are Sprayers (http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/12/dungeon-novice/)

About the airship, it's already done. Bombers (http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/09/pict-of-the-week-spice/). (All those red airships just deployed AC bombs.)

Hope you check the rest of the blog :)

Stop making my suggestion look bad!

I mean, yeah, what he said. :)

Also, beta tester forums.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 09, 2013, 06:30:50 PM
Increasing ammo capacities is a way to provide a buffer, but too much buffer makes things less interesting.  Overcoming your limitations is what makes things interesting, to paraphrase Brandon Sanderson.  Overcoming them by erasing them is only interesting once, though, while effectively operating despite them is interesting through the entire mission.

The only idea I really like here is 4: the spotter.  I very much like the idea of a unit that can expand the capabilities of other units.  However, PZ's are already on the table, and upgrades are affected by the PZ boost, as well - ranges are already very, very flexible.  I can't imagine using a unit like this after a range upgrade or two.
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 09, 2013, 04:43:08 PMI think Lurkily's got a good idea with giving Guppies a "buffer" mode (fly to a location and just stay there, collect packets if they're available on the network, distribute packets if they're not).  It'd keep all of the functions required for remote operations on one unit, and wouldn't look nearly as silly as a Guppy flying to a spot immediately next to it's landing pad.  Also solves the issue of what happens when your "buffer" guppy isn't fully charged when all the "supply" guppies leave the base.
Another thought here was to have guppies deploy a 'destination pad'.  The destination pad dispenses packets, and recieves them from guppies, leaving guppies free to transit packets.  In order to change destinations, a guppy would have to retrieve the destination pad, and move it to the new location.  Destruction of the destination pad requires the guppy to return to base, and for the player to re-invest the cost of the guppy pad to rebuild what was destroyed, before the guppy can be dispatched again.

My main objection to this is that it does a lot to eliminate the gap between deliveries, and it does it with very little effort.  It makes the limitations of guppies a lot less interesting.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 09, 2013, 11:00:25 PM
Im pretty sure using a storage in place could certainly pool into a buffer. Having guppies hook up into a storage for redistribution should work just fine without having guppies set up, and having an alternate setting for a Forward Operating buffer. A storage should work as a buffer guppy perfectly

I really want to see an option where I can construct reactors connected to storages so that I can have a self sustaining base not connected to the command nodes. I doubt this will happen though because I don't think Virgil designed CW3 for it and it would eliminate guppies.

Just a thought
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 09, 2013, 11:31:08 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 09, 2013, 11:00:25 PM
I really want to see an option where I can construct reactors connected to storages so that I can have a self sustaining base not connected to the command nodes. I doubt this will happen though because I don't think Virgil designed CW3 for it and it would eliminate guppies.

So you've got 3 Command Nodes that allow for three independent networks plus guppies that will support any independent paratroopers, but you still want a 4th self sustaining base? You must really like multitasking! ;)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: mpete on February 10, 2013, 02:46:33 AM
Energy guppy to a command node, packet guppy back?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on February 10, 2013, 05:32:02 AM
I think it's good to have some limitations. A CN should be the only way to create energy and convert it to other uses (so reactors and collectors only produce energy when they are connected to a CN).
Using a storage as buffer on a forward-base will only work as long as the delivering guppy is drained before the storage unit. That is, the storage unit only begins to distribute it's stored packets when there is no other source available. But if you have to implement that, you might just as well add this draining-priority to guppies, so that a guppy is kept at full capacity as long as possible and only starts to empty when another guppy is returning to base. It's that easy.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 10, 2013, 08:41:55 AM
I don't want to see anything manufacture packets other than CN's, frankly.  It eliminates the need for CN's almost entirely - the only function they can no longer fulfill is refining ore.  If you wanted to fight without AC, you could just send guppies to the surface to begin construction  I think keeping packet construction in the CN is important for keeping these crucial units crucial.  The way to make a forward base self-sustaining should be to connect it by hard-line.  Hard-line should always be the 'gold standard' of supply, in my opinion, because it offers the most challenges.  Geography, creeper, vulnerability to destruction, etc.

Ronini - it's true that the Guppy-buffer is limited.  But if if runs dry like that, either you don't have enough supply to run those guns anyway, or the request rate of the pad on the beachhead is is insufficient to run them.  Either way, add another guppy for supply, or another guppy pair, supply and buffer.

A better solution that doesn't complicate the guppy, is to permit it to launch with a partial load.
Quote from: mpete on February 10, 2013, 02:46:33 AM
Energy guppy to a command node, packet guppy back?
I thought of that.  But what if there's a CN on both sides, and you only want to bring the excess energy from one side to the other?  
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on February 10, 2013, 09:28:26 AM
Lurkily: Either I did not understand you, or you did not understand me.
It was suggested that if you use multiple guppies on a forward base, they are all drained simultaneously, causing a gap in packet delivery.
I was proposing that only one guppy is identified as a source of packets at a time. So the network would switch to the second guppy only when the first is empty and returns to base to recharge. That way, you wouln't need to give the guppy a "buffer" mode. It would work like that just as it is. No complication.

Two guppies not enough to provide continuous supply? Add a third, which starts being drained when the second guppy is empty. A fourth, fifth, n-th guppy would work the same way.

Only CNs being able to manufacture packets? That's what I said, isn't it?

Edit:
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 08, 2013, 06:09:26 AM
A forward base supplied by 2-3 guppies will, eventually, see all of them in flight at the same time, as they aren't drawn from evenly.  Having the buildings in that base preferentially draw power from a guppy that has a partial load before they start drawing upon a guppy with a full load would solve this problem. 
Which incidentally says what I said, too. And in a much less confusing way, too.

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: inspiratieloos on February 10, 2013, 09:35:09 AM
I think the problem right now is that each guppy gets drained simultaneously, so if you have 2 guppies in a forward base they might both run out at the same time.

If a full guppy would only send packets if it was the only source then the first guppy would drain completely while the second waits, then when guppy1 heads back to restock 2 gets drained and when 1 gets back it waits until 2 is drained before supplying it's own packets.

I assume there is already some sort of priority system for where any given unit draws it's packets from, probably based on whatever is closer (what happens when something is connected to both a CN and a guppy?).
If priorities were changed to prefer drawing from a partially full guppy before a full guppy even if it is farther away, that would make the risk of running out of packets despite having what should be a good supply line much smaller.

Pedit:ninja'd
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 10, 2013, 09:37:03 AM
Quote from: Ronini on February 10, 2013, 09:28:26 AM
It was suggested that if you use multiple guppies on a forward base, they are all drained simultaneously, causing a gap in packet delivery.
I was proposing that only one guppy is identified as a source of packets at a time. So the network would switch to the second guppy only when the first is empty and returns to base to recharge. That way, you wouln't need to give the guppy a "buffer" mode. It would work like that just as it is. No complication.

I think the Guppy closest to the consuming unit is always used. If you prefer to drain one of them first, you can simply deactivate the other(s).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 10, 2013, 09:55:43 AM
What you people are explaining ^ is a complicated way of using guppies when the storage works! You have two guppies suppling your base. Well if you connect a storage then you don't have guppies sitting with full loads doing nothing. You'll always have guppies being able to supply energy to the front line. Your guppies method seems much more inefficient then storage buffers because then you have guppies with full loads not doing anything.

Having the storage only distribute when there are no guppies available could work in the sense the guppy partially charges the storage while still charging the weapons. If you have a storage buffer operating full enough then your weapons should be able to draw full energy supplies from the guppies and storage.

The storage is basically the perm-landed guppy Lurkily and Shrike explained earlier.

We probably should move on to another topic now. :P
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: inspiratieloos on February 10, 2013, 10:45:29 AM
The thing you're forgetting is that good management of the guppies you already have removes the need for a buffer, thus ensuring the AI uses guppy energy better automatically is preferable to making a work-around that requires either extra player input or building an extra unit just to ensure the game doesn't screw up.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 10, 2013, 02:14:10 PM
Yea but I think having a buffer is a really good safety precaution.

(and it's stops me from worrying the entire situation is going to fall apart.)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 10, 2013, 04:03:06 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 10, 2013, 02:14:10 PM
Yea but I think having a buffer is a really good safety precaution.

(and it's stops me from worrying the entire situation is going to fall apart.)
The guppy IS everything you're asking for, at the moment - just less intuitive.  A little clumsier, too, really, but functional.  The only fundamental gameplay difference between guppy buffers and a storage shows when you fail to have adequate logistics supplying your guns . . . at which point, you SHOULD be having problems.

My main issue with seeking to implement a new storage device is that I don't think a new unit with that sole purpose would have enough utility.  Another issue though, is that many packet sources causes a pathfinding burden for packets.  Keep in mind, we've seen a demonstration in one of the earlier videos that pathfinding burdens are a consideration - pathfinding has already changed.  (The Area 256 post, I think, though I don't think he commented on it in the video.)  Instead of rechecking the shortest path at every node, they appear to recheck the path only when they hit a dead end due to network changes.

Right now, I'm mainly thinking about a third titan . . . I'm not interested in seeing something we already have, just bigger . . . something new would be nice.  (And no, I don't count a single unit with eight or ten guns we already have on it as something new.  Can't count the number of Thor MkII suggestions I've seen.)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 10, 2013, 04:22:23 PM
We already finished talking about the guppies.

I wasn't suggesting a new unit

I really like the concept of having an ability to push creeper that's not close to your front lines condensed in a different location. Whether it be the suicidal vacuum balloon suggested or some sort of titan that shoots Creeper attraction shots I would love to see that implemented.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on February 10, 2013, 04:52:04 PM
You know what would be a really great addition? A unit that vaporizes all creeper in an instant and also destroys all non-friendly units. It could cost really much energy to build and also a lot of ammo.

Obviously, I don't mean that. Although it might even be fun to use this weapon just once. I try to make te following point: Whatever new addition there will come mustn't take away the challenge. To this end, I like how the forge relies on powered totems to work. The Bertha almost appears too powerful and (though I don't know if this has happened since we last saw it) probably could do with a slower rate of fire and/or an increase of ammo costs, in my book. Although I already have the feeling that if a good time is what you're after, the Bertha is not the way to go. Anyway, both hit that small area between being useless and being OP.

While typing the above, I came up with an idea for a third titan (apologies if it has been suggested before). A wind generator. It allows the player to controll the wind on the map (or an area). It could be used to ease the pressure on your defensive lines, or to pool up creeper against a wall (Here you go, people wishing for a creeper-condenser), or to neutralize (redirect) the map-inherent wind. Energy cost could vary depending on the wind strength. It should have a maximum, though. It might just end up a bit too far on the useless side, but at least it shouldn't be OP (given a reasonable maximum strength).

What do you think?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 10, 2013, 05:03:07 PM
We seem to enough enough weapons that are created to destroy creeper. I think titan suggestions are currently focused around clever creeper manipulating mechanics.

It's a good idea but isn't that just one giant shield and doesn't that just ruin the mechanic of the wind in CW3 maps. If you can cancel out the wind the map has then there's no purpose in the wind.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 10, 2013, 05:08:07 PM
As for giving the guppy new modes . . . (Rather than separating it out as a unit, which I mistakenly thought you meant,)  I don't think we'd be successful seeking a new dispatch mode in a unit that's already losing important things like AC carriage for reasons of complexity.  

I'm considering titan ideas like economic titans . . . but that seems too easy. Blog discussion considered a tesla device, which would slightly damage all creeper connectied to the impact zone - potentially most of the map - my a small amount.  I also considered something like a torpedo - striking at the deepest creeper, it can reach, but the projectile limited to pathfinding through only areas immersed in creeper or AC.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 10, 2013, 05:15:15 PM
Dude let the guppy thing go  :P

I think we're all set on using a guppy buffer

Well I doubt the Forge thingy will be on all maps, and I would prefer having something mobile and effective that costs energy (or shake things up and have it use AC even though it doesn't fire any AC)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on February 10, 2013, 05:19:51 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 10, 2013, 05:03:07 PM
We seem to enough enough weapons that are created to destroy creeper. I think titan suggestions are currently focused around clever creeper manipulating mechanics.

It's a good idea but isn't that just one giant shield and doesn't that just ruin the mechanic of the wind in CW3 maps. If you can cancel out the wind the map has then there's no purpose in the wind.

It's not just a giant shield. You could pull the creeper towards you, too. Or push it to one side. Plus, you can turn it on and off and change directions mid-mission.

You could always disable it in your custom map if you think the wind shouldn't be altered.

Also I don't liek the particular idea, it could be fueled by ac.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on February 10, 2013, 05:30:36 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 10, 2013, 05:03:07 PM
We seem to enough enough weapons that are created to destroy creeper. I think titan suggestions are currently focused around clever creeper manipulating mechanics.


Of course, there are only so many of those to go around, either.

I like the idea of a shockwave and/or implosion based weapon, but it sounds like the latter is already covered.

Soooo...

Tesla and Torpedo both sound nifty. Economic titan is obviously something that isn't there yet, but again, balance.


Maybe a terrain manipulation-related Titan? Like, a ground-leveling missile or something.

Orrr! A defensive Titan that buffs a targeted unit(s)' health/defense/regen! That could be useful, too.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 10, 2013, 05:48:59 PM
V did say, some maps will not permit you to build a forge, some will not permit a forge at all, others will not have strictures, but no totems.

Not keen on terrain-manip.  Terps are already too strong, I think.

Another idea that's run through my mind is a titan that permits the players to directly manipulate forces - literally introduce forces to the map, just paint it onto the map.  This would probably be used for the same things as things like shield/singularity scenarios though, so I'm not sure how much more useful it is. 
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on February 10, 2013, 06:04:07 PM
Agree with lurkily there: it'd be just doing the same things that are already done.

If I'm not mistaken, though, one idea that seems to keep popping up in one form or another is something that does a bit of damage over a wide area. It would certainly be neat to have something to that effect.

If we're not doing terrain-manip, and most things based around forces can be done with what we already have, that leaves us with defensive, economic, different ways to kill Creeper, or something that does a normal function or two in an unusual way (ie, the 'airship' Titan). Or something radically different that I can't think of.

Plus whatever ideas slipped by me.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on February 11, 2013, 11:06:43 AM
I doubt there is any real use for anything economy related. The only thing you could improve (other than with the forge's upgrades) is output. But before you have the energy to build a titan you should be in a position where you do not really need it or could just as well replace it with additional reactors.

However, there is no real need for any additional titan, is there?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Twi on February 11, 2013, 03:25:33 PM
Quote from: Ronini on February 11, 2013, 11:06:43 AM
However, there is no real need for any additional titan, is there?
But the menu looks so sparse with only two! :P
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 11, 2013, 03:29:36 PM
The economic titan I had in mind was the one which could produce ore from energy or energy from ore, etc.  The idea there was to supplement the ore deposits on the map, for those who like using AC, and for those who don't, to give them a reason to fight for the ore mines as a source of energy.  But I don't think it has quite enough utility to qualify as a titan, really.

Also, Virgil said on the blog that he was going to seek a roster of three titans.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 11, 2013, 05:49:07 PM
No offense, But I personally don't really like the idea of a Unit that can turn Ore into Energy or vice versa. It seems like it ruins the point of having ore deposit on a map. I could tolerate and ore into energy convertor but I don't want players to be able to turn your energy into ore. This would ruin the purpose of having ore deposits and maps with any ore deposits could be cheated with having ore.

So I think most maps would disable this unit and if the unit isn't being used in most maps there really isn't a point to adding it.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 11, 2013, 05:52:33 PM
As long as efficiency was basically a rip-off, I would hope that it would remain supplemental only.  Early game it would drain too much energy to use alone, and once you have an ore deposit or to, it would only be useful if you were intent on using AC over energy-based weapons.

I still don't think it has enough utility to qualify as a titan, though.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on February 12, 2013, 02:36:54 AM
Titan: Shield generator:
It can create shields over other units to defend them against the creeper. It takes some energy and time to create a shield over an unit. After that it will drain a little bit of energy (0.005/frame, 0.15/sec) while not being attacked by creeper and a lot of energy (0.1/frame, 3/sec) when the creeper touches the shield. The energy is drained from the generator. Weapons that need a line of sight (pulse cannons, snipers and sprayers) can't fire while in a shield while pads (guppy, strafer) and launchers can. Once the creeper gets higher than 2 it will flow into the shield and the shield explodes. The shield can only be created when the unit is not in the creeper and the shield will go away when you move the unit away.

Why is this helpful? Your units will be able to stay in the creeper while other weapons defend it to avoid that the creeper gets higher than 2. Imagine you have built a relay in a valley to bridge a gap, when the creeper flows in it's very hard to defend it and the connection is lost. It's a lot easier to keep the creeper lower than 2. Another use case is when you can put a launcher on a PZ that gets drowned in creeper soon, if you can't supply it you can build relays there and shield them too.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 12, 2013, 05:29:30 AM
Quote from: J on February 12, 2013, 02:36:54 AM
Titan: Shield generator:
It can create shields over other units to defend them against the creeper. It takes some energy and time to create a shield over an unit. After that it will drain a little bit of energy (0.005/frame, 0.15/sec) while not being attacked by creeper and a lot of energy (0.1/frame, 3/sec) when the creeper touches the shield. The energy is drained from the generator. Weapons that need a line of sight (pulse cannons, snipers and sprayers) can't fire while in a shield while pads (guppy, strafer) and launchers can. Once the creeper gets higher than 2 it will flow into the shield and the shield explodes. The shield can only be created when the unit is not in the creeper and the shield will go away when you move the unit away.

Would you be able to 'shield' non-weapon units, like relays? That way you can create (or rather, protect) bridges of network that would normally be destroyed.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on February 12, 2013, 07:39:11 AM
I'd scrap the level 2 creeper limit, but restrict the shield to non-weapon units, only. I would especially exclude nullifiers.
Why would I keep a unit where it is in danger of being destroyed, when it cannot fire? And shouldn't a mortar on a pz be able to keep clear of creeper in almost any case? Especially if you were to aid him with one or two PC, which should and would be cheaper than the shield generator.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 12, 2013, 04:23:01 PM
What about a Creeper ship, or even submarine? It can only function when surrounded by Creeper (minimum of 1 elevation layer) and will provide connections when in range of land units. Its crazonium alloy prevents destruction. Can be moved around slowly and is able to drop depth charges. If you kill the Creeper around it too soon, it will be stuck. Will also float on anti-Creeper.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 12, 2013, 04:53:03 PM
That sounds kind of cool. The submarine or ship could be sent to an area and have a weapon of some sort and it could attack the creeper. It would be great for trying to attack some of those really powerful emitters.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Anonymeus on February 12, 2013, 04:58:50 PM
Any ability to affect game time should carry a penalty in game space (and vice-versa)

The balance is energy.

This is what works in CW1....

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 12, 2013, 06:23:25 PM
Titan suggestion:  Deep-bore rig.

Description:
The deep-bore rig, once constructed and aimed at a location, begins to dig a tunnel.  This tunnel is pumped full of anticreeper, which helps to prevent collapse and provides the pressure that drives the drill bit.  Upon reaching it's target, the deep-boring rig's drill bit breaches the surface and creates a veritable fountain of anticreeper at the destination.

Game effect:
This is a titan that draws AC continually while in operation, both during the drilling phase and once the tunnel breaches the surface.  The tunnel doesn't exist in-game; it's theoretically "below" the map, and so will not require the game engine to be modified to handle things like multiple layers of terrain.  Drilling time will be based on distance to target.  Once the tunnel is complete, the anticreeper being fed into the rig appears at the tunnel mouth, behaving much like an AC emitter until the player shuts down the rig, retargets it, or runs out of AC to pump.

Possible limitations:
*Running out of AC or shutting off the rig might cause the tunnel to collapse, requiring a new one to be drilled when the titan is turned back on.
*Tunneling across void might be impossible, the distance to a legitimate target might be calculated as overland distance rather than a straight line, with parts of some maps being completely inaccessible from other parts due to void.
*While there is no structure at the tunnel mouth to be damaged (it's a hole in the ground), having enormous amounts of creeper on top of the tunnel mouth might create enough backpressure to force creeper back along the tunnel and up into the Deep-bore rig, damaging it over time (but at least reducing the amount of creeper at the destination).  In the event the Deep-bore rig is destroyed, explosives lining the tunnel might deliberately collapse it to prevent a sudden upwelling of creeper in your base.

-----------------------------------
Titan suggestion: Space Elevator (mark II)

Description:
This titanic structure forms a physical bridge to the command ship in orbit above the battlefield.  Once constructed, the space elevator lifts both packets and anticreeper into orbit, providing the raw material for the construction of an Emitter Cap and the anticreeper to fill it.  Emitter caps are dropped from orbit directly on top of creeper emitters, whereupon they block off the emitter, breach their storage containers, and pour anticreeper in all directions.  While it is only possible to temporarily block an emitter with an Emitter Cap (as the creeper being produced within will burn through the cap eventually) this can allow for the creation of a temporary beachhead and the assembly of a Nullifier to permanently shut down the emitter.  It is possible to drop an Emitter Cap anywhere on the map, in which case it will simply act as a single massive anticreeper bomb before self-destructing.

Game Effect:
Once "charged" with packets and AC, firing the Space Elevator drops an Emitter Cap onto the battlefield.  Any emitter the cap is placed on top of will cease emitting creeper, but the Emitter Cap will take damage at a rate proportional to the emission rate of that emitter.  This is a fairly sturdy structure, so it ought to be possible to have a well-timed air assault establish and detonate a nullifier before most emitters can burn through the cap.  The Emitter Cap will also release all of the anticreeper it contains upon landing, hopefully clearing an LZ for those air forces, or simply making a giant bubble of AC in a convenient location.  In the event that there is no emitter under the Emitter Cap (either because it was Nullified or because the commander dropped it in the open) the Emitter Cap will then self-destruct to clear the area for more useful structures.

Possible limitations:
*The Emitter Cap might release AC over time, rather than as a solid burst.  This might make dropping it into deeply covered areas less successful, as the creeper in the surroundings will also damage the Emitter Cap and shorten it's overall lifespan.  Destruction of an Emitter Cap should result in the release of all of the AC left within (you've simply broken the container) but will also uncap any emitter the Emitter Cap was placed upon.
*The Emitter Cap might require a certain amount of Packets to construct, but have a much larger AC payload capacity.  Thus, it might take 100 packets to construct the Emitter Cap, but it would continue to draw AC after the Cap was constructed, filling it's storage compartments with more and more AC.  A commander could drop the cap immediately, or choose to wait a while and put more AC on target.  This would cause the Emitter Cap to behave somewhat like a CW2 Maker set to store AC, and it's deployment would be much like a Burst.
*Related to the above limitation, there might not be any AC storage at the top of the Space Elevator; the Emitter Cap might have to be constructed (with packets) before any AC can be lifted and stored, thus slowing the deployment of the Cap.
*Dropping the Emitter Cap onto a spore tower might do something entertaining, or might do nothing.  Suggestions?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 12, 2013, 09:00:06 PM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 12, 2013, 04:23:01 PM
What about a Creeper ship, or even submarine? It can only function when surrounded by Creeper (minimum of 1 elevation layer) and will provide connections when in range of land units. Its crazonium alloy prevents destruction. Can be moved around slowly and is able to drop depth charges. If you kill the Creeper around it too soon, it will be stuck. Will also float on anti-Creeper.
Reminds me vaguely of the torpedo weapon that pathfinds to deepest creeper in reach, but can only reach creeper that it can access via a continuous connection of AC/Creeper from the launch site.

Honestly, the "Tesla" weapon discussed before on the blog is my favorite contender - deal slight damage to every single cell of creeper that's connected to the strike site by contiguous creeper.  It's a very situational weapon.  It could be very powerful, or it could be a waste of resources, based on geography and your tactics.

EDIT: I should add that I do also like the idea of weapons that require you to invest resources off-the-map, such as by sending resources into orbit.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 12, 2013, 09:16:39 PM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 12, 2013, 04:23:01 PM
What about a Creeper ship, or even submarine?

Quote from: lurkily on February 12, 2013, 09:00:06 PM
Reminds me vaguely of the torpedo weapon

It reminds me vaguely of a proposal from 2010 (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=4381.msg21417#msg21417).... ;)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 12, 2013, 09:58:23 PM
It is interesting how certain ideas seem to reside in some collective unconscious.  Always makes me wonder if the  underlying source of the idea's structure is somehow communicated before the idea arises independently, or if it's more likely that the underlying structure of some ideas are just present in all, (or many,) men.

I wish it were actually possible to answer questions like these.  I'll shut up now, before I turn a practical thread into something philosophical.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 12, 2013, 10:16:02 PM
Quote from: lurkily on February 12, 2013, 09:58:23 PM

I wish it were actually possible to answer questions like these.  I'll shut up now, before I turn a practical thread into something philosophical.

It *hurts* to forcefully expirate some kinds of liquid through one's nostrils. Cleaning up my keyboard is what I'll be doing for a little while now. :(
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 13, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
Wow quite a post Shrike.

Deep Bore Rig:
I could definitely see that in game but I wonder about how much AC that would cost. That seems like a ridiculous amount of AC but I really like the idea. What about the potential of allowing packets to go through the tunnel or even just the the idea of a landline tunnel separate. What if it could just suck up some Creeper into the tunnel before detonating trapping creeper into the tunnel. Just some suggestions.

Space Elevator (mark II)/Emitter Cap
The idea of temporarily disabling an emitter seems interesting. I think you shouldn't be able to destroy it when it has a cap on it and that it releases some pressurized creeper when the cap is destroyed. I like the idea otherwise.

I really like those ideas Shrike :D

P.S. We have a Philosphy thread in the random stuff section that I'd like to see revived :P
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 13, 2013, 07:47:16 PM
I think there should be a possibility to make micro rifts but only for some of those extra large maps.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: mpete on February 13, 2013, 10:17:25 PM
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on February 13, 2013, 07:47:16 PM
I think there should be a possibility to make micro rifts but only for some of those extra large maps.
Are command nodes not mobile?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 13, 2013, 11:23:18 PM
There are only three. Also some people were saying there should be the option to make them immobile once you place them if you want that for your map. Also think of the map area 256 and how big it was.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 14, 2013, 06:15:10 AM
@Micro-rifts:
Yes, the command nodes are mobile, but there are only three of them. On CW:E I always found myself moving the city around when the supply lines were getting too long - if there was space, anyway. Have we actually seen a video of V moving the CN?

I think that a sensible and confident attack would allow for the commander to continually edge their CN forwards if it's just too far away. Micro-rifts just seem completely overpowered to me in that they are basically saying you can have the same network on opposite sides of the map. I'd always prefer guppies to do this - it seems a nicer way to do it. And, if all else fails, I might well rather have my un-supplied forward base overrun than have the overpowered feeling of micro-rifts. Don't get me wrong, they were very useful in CW2 (mostly because a lot of the map i've played actually required them) but it just seems overkill on a top down map where you can reach anywhere with guppies or mobile CNs.

Just my opinions on the matter.

P.S: A micro-rift as a titan? I think titans would be better mass destruction or mass effects based, not economical. Too complicated.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 14, 2013, 07:23:43 AM
I honestly can't imagine REALLY needing more than three rifts.  If a mapmaker restricts CN's, well, it's up to them to ensure that the map size can be managed.  Nothing will stop bad design, and if it's badly designed, I suspect a large map size with restricted CN placement will be the least of your problems.

I honestly think guppies serve every function that a rift does . . . only more interesting in its function.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 14, 2013, 09:03:29 AM
Quote from: lurkily on February 14, 2013, 07:23:43 AM
Nothing will stop bad design, and if it's badly designed, I suspect a large map size with restricted CN placement will be the least of your problems.

Definitely.
It must be doable for upload, but that doesn't mean it has to be easy, interesting at all, or just plain decent.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 14, 2013, 11:06:21 AM
Regarding the microrifts:

- CW2 was wireless, so it made sense. CW3 is network based, so it doesn't make sense.
- In CW2 you had to dig your way down to able able to reach all corners of the map. In CW3 you can send every moveable/flying unit anywwhere, without it touching the Creeper until it lands.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 14, 2013, 12:35:53 PM
I was thinking it could be something you need to protect in a map with large voids between asteroids where you have to obtain the guppy tech from a different asteroid.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Lord_Farin on February 14, 2013, 05:49:44 PM
Another alternative is to make the terrain uneven to prevent guppies or any other unit from landing until terps have done their job.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 14, 2013, 06:01:32 PM
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on February 14, 2013, 12:35:53 PM
I was thinking it could be something you need to protect in a map with large voids between asteroids where you have to obtain the guppy tech from a different asteroid.

Expect there to be objective based objects you have to defend. (the CW3 equivalent of Drop Pods)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on February 14, 2013, 11:21:59 PM
I came up with this idea when watching "The March" today.
How about a unit that allows aircraft to link up to the network while in flight?
The unit would require energy and/or packets to operate. Aircraft in flight would be able to be rearmed and could get back to the action quickly.
If the unit would support Guppies, it should either require another (slightly more expensive) unit or an upgrade to the unit (and higher energy cost).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 15, 2013, 04:29:20 AM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 13, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
Deep Bore Rig:
I could definitely see that in game but I wonder about how much AC that would cost. That seems like a ridiculous amount of AC but I really like the idea. What about the potential of allowing packets to go through the tunnel or even just the the idea of a landline tunnel separate. What if it could just suck up some Creeper into the tunnel before detonating trapping creeper into the tunnel. Just some suggestions.
Balancing the AC use would be important.  You'd be operating something like this in lieu of putting that AC into bombers or sprayers, much the same way that a Bertha uses a ton of energy that could otherwise be going to other structures.  In low-ore environments, it'd be impractical.

I do like the idea (spun off your "sucking up creeper then collapsing" idea) of allowing it to function as something like a long-range terp that can only reduce height.  Basically, the rig drills out the ground beneath an area and then collapses the caves it's created, dropping the height of the area.  You could create trenches, deepen lakes, and generally make larger areas for the creeper to fill before it spills over.  I'm not sure there's much interest in a titan terraformer, though.

Quote from: Chawe800 on February 13, 2013, 06:27:44 PM
Space Elevator (mark II)/Emitter Cap
The idea of temporarily disabling an emitter seems interesting. I think you shouldn't be able to destroy it when it has a cap on it and that it releases some pressurized creeper when the cap is destroyed. I like the idea otherwise.
If you weren't able to destroy the capped emitter while the cap was in place, I think it'd be hard to find a use for the thing, as anything you built in the area would have a burst of creeper coming shortly.  If there's going to be a massive cost associated with a titan weapon, it should have titanic effects IMO.  If you're spending several hundred packets building the Elevator and subsequent Caps, plus the amount of anticreeper likely going into this thing, it should pay off pretty well when used.

Honestly, I think it'd be cool if there was an uncharged Nullifier built into the Cap.  You don't want to drop one of those things through an atmosphere powered up (vibrations might cause an early detonation, spraying your AC all over the stratosphere), but once it's had a chance to stabilize on the ground, it'd only make sense to have one in place.  Maybe drop the Cap in a Disconnected state, so that supplying the Nullifier was optional.  The Nullifier might also only be able to target the emitter underneath the Cap, as it's within the armored structure of the Cap itself, in which case it might make more sense to build a Nullifier outside of the Cap (if, say, it's in the middle of a bunch of Emitters).




What happens when you build a Titan on a power site?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 15, 2013, 08:01:01 AM
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 15, 2013, 04:29:20 AMBasically, the rig drills out the ground beneath an area and then collapses the caves it's created, dropping the height of the area.  You could create trenches, deepen lakes, and generally make larger areas for the creeper to fill before it spills over.  I'm not sure there's much interest in a titan terraformer, though.
I think the idea here is that it would create a tunnel, suck tunnel into this theoretical hole in the map, then cave in the tunnel.  Not a large-scale terraform to create moats to slow it down, but to fully seal it away.  In effect, since that creeper just goes away, to 'destroy' it.

QuoteWhat happens when you build a Titan on a power site?
I can't see that V commented on the specific effects anywhere, (I looked!) but both V and McG have stated that every unit gets a boost.
Quote from: Kingo on February 14, 2013, 11:21:59 PMI came up with this idea when watching "The March" today.
How about a unit that allows aircraft to link up to the network while in flight?
Air units don't even link up with the network when they're on the ground - only with their pad when they're on the pad.  The only exception is guppies, when they land to dispatch.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 15, 2013, 08:37:52 AM
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 15, 2013, 04:29:20 AM
What happens when you build a Titan on a power site?

It gets some upgrade from the PZ. For instance, the Big Bertha will fire a 3-shell shot, and use only 75 ammo rather than 150 to do so. 3x the damage, 50% the cost. It's huge.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 15, 2013, 10:39:21 AM
virgil had said that the bertha on a power zone would have something like a scatter shot.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 15, 2013, 12:19:51 PM
Man.  Given the staggering cost of building/operating a Titan, I can't imagine not wanting to wait and clear a PZ before setting one up (if practicable) if the bonuses are going to be that huge.

I'm honestly not sure that's such a good idea.  Not going to complain about having it, just thinking it might be a little OP.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on February 15, 2013, 04:46:48 PM
Quote from: Kingo on February 14, 2013, 11:21:59 PMI came up with this idea when watching "The March" today.
How about a unit that allows aircraft to link up to the network while in flight?
Air units don't even link up with the network when they're on the ground - only with their pad when they're on the pad.  The only exception is guppies, when they land to dispatch.
[/quote]

Well I think we all saw what you described in the blog videos.
That is why it is a suggestion :).
Another idea I had:
As a mapmaker, balancing the use of units (only applicabe to removing the technology and making them get it) being built and/or having units already built on the map can really add challenge to a map.
It would be great if you put several technology units on the map, and the player could only build a certain amount of units after retrieveing the tech.
This is uesful when you want to put units in an area where the creeper will cover it. Putting built units will make them useless, because they will be destroyed.

It would be a useful tool for mapmakers.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 15, 2013, 04:53:10 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 15, 2013, 04:29:20 AM
...spraying your AC all over the stratosphere...

Hah! Anticreeper rain!

... actually, that sounds almost useful if controllable.
Then again, what does this achieve that bombers don't?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on February 15, 2013, 06:47:03 PM
It has a wider area of effect?
On a map with less dense creeper this could be great. Bombers are very slow and distribute anticreeper onto 1 area.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 15, 2013, 06:51:00 PM
AC Rain is spectacular and spectacularly ineffective.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 15, 2013, 09:06:07 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 15, 2013, 12:19:51 PMMan.  Given the staggering cost of building/operating a Titan, I can't imagine not wanting to wait and clear a PZ before setting one up (if practicable) if the bonuses are going to be that huge.
The way I see it, a PZ grants you de facto control over that entire region of the map, and provides ongoing long-term benefits through the placement of strafers, titans, or reactors.  Even if the PZ is isolated by void or somesuch to minimize its advantage to you, its advantage will be projected if you use it wisely - even if it's only occupied by a reactor, or a relay to bridge normally unbridgeable gaps.

Once you start taking power zones, you should already know how you plan to finish the map.  I see the power zones as being the way you 'break' the enemy.  Once you can hold a power zone so securely that you can complete a titan there, I have no problem with the titan being strong.

Remember, a mapper can always forbid a player from using a PZ if they must, through methods such as occupying a cell under the edge of an emitter with void.
Quote from: hoodwink on February 15, 2013, 04:53:10 PMHah! Anticreeper rain!

... actually, that sounds almost useful if controllable.
Then again, what does this achieve that bombers don't?
Nothing . . . and it would put only a fraction of your AC where it would do good.  It might be helpful if your storage is filling and you cannot bring your AC to bear - or perhaps on maps with lots of void or AET's.  But I don't think it will be preferable to an unhindered bombing in any circumstance.

Doesn't mean it wouldn't be awesome, though.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 15, 2013, 09:16:57 PM
I think an AC rain would look cool if the game was made in 3D.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on February 16, 2013, 04:32:54 PM
AC rain would really lag lower end computers... if it was in 3D.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 16, 2013, 06:14:46 PM
Quote from: Kingo on February 16, 2013, 04:32:54 PM
AC rain would really lag lower end computers... if it was in 3D.

And you know this.... how?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 16, 2013, 09:16:21 PM
Low-end 3D is actually pretty light in its requirements, yes?  A series of moving cylinders?

Besides.  Imagine what a 3D engine rendering CW events as they appear now would visualize AC rain as.  A bunch of falling cylinders that drop AC when they intersect the map?  Or maybe elongated cones with hemisphere caps, for a droplet shape?  Anything you want to use 3D to do with CW's current look and function, you can use 2D rendering to fake. 
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 17, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
Titan Suggestion: The Storm Caller

This enormous device pours energy into the local magnetosphere, bringing about significant changes in the weather.

Abilities:
Wind regulation - The direction and intensity of the desired wind conditions can be set by the commander.  The Storm Caller will begin drawing packets from the network at a fairly high rate and will gradually shift existing wind conditions towards those specified by the commander.

Atmospheric seeding - The Storm Caller begins drawing Anticreeper from the network and "storing" it in the upper ionosphere by applying an electromagnetic charge to keep it suspended there.

Call the Storm! - When targeted on an area, the Storm Caller draws packets from the network to reshape the magnetic field it has induced in the ionosphere and direct it at the planet's surface.  This causes an impressive lightning storm at the target (similar in effect to occasional mortar strikes) and also causes any Anticreeper suspended in the ionosphere by the Storm Caller to rain down on the target area.




That enough AC rain for ya? :)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 17, 2013, 08:30:24 PM
Hrm.  This one actually interests me.  Particularly in the number of ways it can be applied.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 17, 2013, 08:49:14 PM
I'd like a scanner unit that detects artifacts beneath the surface, so I can dig them up using a Terp.

These artifacts could be crystals, aether deposits, ore deposits, techs, secret messages, hidden totems, but also locked units that can be used after connecting them to the network.

The scanner could use colors to indicate the type of artifact detected beneath the surface.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 17, 2013, 09:03:50 PM
I met some resistance, on similar suggestions.  Some see the near-perfect information you can access in the CW series to be something intrinsic to the series, as if hiding things from the player is wrong.  I have to say that it feels a little wrong to me, for other reasons - it seems to me like just another reason to open the map in the editor before playing it for an honest score.

I'd rather the location and type were known, but for the player to have to get more resources in position to access it.  For instance, once uncovered, maybe you need to build a mine there to refine it over time into a usable resource, before siphoning it away. 

Long story short, I'd rather not add reasons for the player to cheat a map by looking at it before playing it.  I'd rather them be able to come to a map for the first time, and not feel like they can't do their best without looking at it in the editor first.  If buried artifacts or deposits need to be harder to access, I think other means should be pursued to do that.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 17, 2013, 09:31:01 PM
Yep, the same can be said about games that for instance use the 'fog of war'. If you're playing for a high score, your second run indeed will be better.

However if you're not after that #1 score/time, but just play for the fun of it, you could actually like the exploring element. You remember the first time you found your crossbow in Half-Life? Or discovered that hidden chamber with lots of ammo? You probably could have opened these maps in an editor as well. Or just search the internet.

I see your point in opening the editor though. I know I did the same thing in CW1 to check all emitter intensities, frequencies and spore waves. Nothing wrong with that, but after a while you start appreciating the element of surprise. It's a personal preference I guess.

That said the random maps could contain some 'bonuses' for instance. You can't open these in the editor. A second option would be to not be able to open custom maps from other authors in the editor at all, so everything remains a secret. The last option is to accept that you can never please every kind of player as a map maker. You always create them for a targeted audience and these players will keep coming back if they like it.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 17, 2013, 09:35:26 PM
Quote from: lurkily on February 17, 2013, 09:03:50 PM

Long story short, I'd rather not add reasons for the player to cheat a map by looking at it before playing it.  I'd rather them be able to come to a map for the first time, and not feel like they can't do their best without looking at it in the editor first.  If buried artifacts or deposits need to be harder to access, I think other means should be pursued to do that.

Just on a point of order, this is NOT cheating. It's IMNSHO, bad map making. Cheating is on the order of using hex- or other run-time editors to adjust values, etc.

As for the excavating to discover stuff - we did toss it around, but there were intrinsic issues that could not be overcome within the scope of CW3. It is a pity, though.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 17, 2013, 10:04:03 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on February 17, 2013, 09:35:26 PM
As for the excavating to discover stuff - we did toss it around, but there were intrinsic issues that could not be overcome within the scope of CW3. It is a pity, though.

Always nice to have something on the list for CW4, isn't it? ;)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 18, 2013, 08:53:49 AM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 17, 2013, 09:31:01 PM
Yep, the same can be said about games that for instance use the 'fog of war'. If you're playing for a high score, your second run indeed will be better.
Yeah, I don't particularly agree with that viewpoint - just reiterated one reason that was provided to me.  The feeling that you must ruin the surprise because you feel you can't play effectively without opening the map in the editor was my main objection.

Interestingly, I have found that, with my personal rule against examining maps in the editor before completing them, I often find my first times to be good, and then have a harder time beating them with more complete information.  Perhaps because I don't like to pause a lot, and my reactions are faster and more urgent when I don't know what to expect?  Hrm.
Quote from: Grauniad on February 17, 2013, 09:35:26 PMJust on a point of order, this is NOT cheating. It's IMNSHO, bad map making. Cheating is on the order of using hex- or other run-time editors to adjust values, etc.
I didn't mean to call anybody a cheater; more that a map-maker typically makes a map to be played, not to be inspected under a microscope. 

Sorry if I offended anybody there.  It's certainly not a cheat in the sense of competitive advantage.  I misspoke because I set it as a personal goal for myself to complete a game first as the dev wished it to be played.  I chide myself that it's cheating to read a walkthrough or look up secrets to keep myself on the straight and narrow, so I misspoke here.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 18, 2013, 10:55:56 AM
On the Subject of AC storms. If it's in a specific area then it's the equvilence of bombers except more spread out in a sense. You can still achieve this with timing of bombers though.

I'm sorry Shrike but I really hate the idea of a wind machine of any sort. I don't mean to offend someone but I truly despise the concept. Like I said before it takes away the element of adding wind in the first place. It removes the quirk of wind.

That's just my opinion and if the rest of the community loves the idea I can respect that.

Also how would a Bertha fit on a PZ? Would the center part be placed on it?

Another quick question. Would it be possible to have emitters that don't leave PZs behind? (I think you can do this with CRPL though...)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on February 18, 2013, 11:01:28 AM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 18, 2013, 10:55:56 AM
Also how would a Bertha fit on a PZ? Would the center part be placed on it?
Center must be on it (you can even put a CN on it :D)
Quote
Another quick question. Would it be possible to have emitters that don't leave PZs behind? (I think you can do this with CRPL though...)
100% possible with CRPL
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 18, 2013, 12:57:34 PM
Just another quick question:

What (if anything) would happen if a Aetherium forge happened to be atop a power zone? Any kind of boost? Or is this impossible anyway?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 18, 2013, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: hoodwink on February 18, 2013, 12:57:34 PM
What (if anything) would happen if a Aetherium forge happened to be atop a power zone? Any kind of boost? Or is this impossible anyway?

It would unlock the mysteries of the universe... :P  Think "fruit of knowledge of good and evil". Do you think it's worth the price?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 18, 2013, 01:07:06 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on February 18, 2013, 01:00:23 PM
Quote from: hoodwink on February 18, 2013, 12:57:34 PM
What (if anything) would happen if a Aetherium forge happened to be atop a power zone? Any kind of boost? Or is this impossible anyway?

It would unlock the mysteries of the universe... :P  Think "fruit of knowledge of good and evil". Do you think it's worth the price?

Yes, as long as that involved destroying more creeper! :D
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 18, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: lurkily on February 18, 2013, 08:53:49 AM
The feeling that you must ruin the surprise because you feel you can't play effectively without opening the map in the editor was my main objection.

Your feeling is based on the wrong assumption. Items crucial to beating the map should never be buried under the soil in my opinion, unless it's a puzzle map or clues are given. Otherwise these items should just be bonuses. When used like that, they can be a very fun addition to the game and introduce an additional aspect: exploration.

A bad map maker can screw up any map. For instance an emitter that suddenly 'erupts' after 30 minutes of gameplay without any warning. Also I don't have to tell you what CRPL-cores are capable of; these babies can do anything and you won't know until you analysed all scripts (yes, in the editor).

In short: making good maps is a skill and excluding units/options is not going to change that in any way. There will always be bad maps.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 18, 2013, 02:39:05 PM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 18, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
In short: making good maps is a skill and excluding units/options is not going to change that in any way. There will always be bad maps.

Agreed.
The main point of this thread, as I see it, is to improve the features of the game, and thus the maximum of how good those 'good maps' can be. We're not really focusing on how to make the 'bad maps' not so bad, are we?
Any feature can be used wrongly, and thus anything we improve the game with may be used to annoy people in bad maps. These bad maps will not be played much - if at all - and the makers may learn how to get better. I say 'may' because I do not doubt peoples' stupidity sometimes.
I personally quite liked the idea on CW2 of a little side assault wherein you are rewarded with a piece of technology for your efforts, thus to help with the rest of the map. Same with bonuses: it's optional, but helpful.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 18, 2013, 03:27:59 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 18, 2013, 10:55:56 AM
On the Subject of AC storms. If it's in a specific area then it's the equvilence of bombers except more spread out in a sense. You can still achieve this with timing of bombers though.

I'm sorry Shrike but I really hate the idea of a wind machine of any sort. I don't mean to offend someone but I truly despise the concept. Like I said before it takes away the element of adding wind in the first place. It removes the quirk of wind.

It could also add the quirk of wind on a windless map, which could be amusing or tactically useful.  You're right in saying that AC storms would be similar in effect to bombers; the only real advantage that this would have would be not worrying about travel time, as the storm would start shortly after the titan was "fired."  Berthas don't really accomplish anything you couldn't pull off with strafers, for that matter, but they definitely "feel" different, which I think is the main point of a Titan unit.  I'm just spitballing ideas here, so there's no need to apologize for not liking them.




Titan suggestion: Calcifier

Description:
This Titan allows commanders to reinforce fragile elements of their infrastructure.  When "fired" at a structure on the same network, the Calcifier draws Anticreeper from the command node and then sends it to the target building, where it is compressed into a thin shell lining the exterior of that structure, helping to protect it from encroaching Creeper.

Game Effect:
The Calcifier consumes a set amount of Anticreeper when targeted at one of your buildings, and raises the maximum Health of that building by a set amount.  This can be done once for any given building.  This would allow Weapons to be made tougher, and would also allow Infrastructure buildings (such as Relays and Collectors) to survive for a short period of time when immersed in Creeper.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on February 18, 2013, 03:42:42 PM
As good as new ideas are, I think CW3 is about too close to its peak in new stuff to take in anymore. After the current stuff is finalized and polished, I think it can stop there. The original time goal of before 2013 has already been passed and the sonner CW3 gets what it has tweaked enough, the less unpredictable the expected released will be.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 18, 2013, 03:52:33 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 18, 2013, 10:55:56 AMI'm sorry Shrike but I really hate the idea of a wind machine of any sort. I don't mean to offend someone but I truly despise the concept. Like I said before it takes away the element of adding wind in the first place. It removes the quirk of wind.
I wouldn't mind this so much, WITH the provision that this is a limited-time deal.  I would be against any wind-manipulation device that could be powered indefinitely just by putting enough reactors down.

As for there being anything special or quirky about wind . . . it's really just a shortcut for covering the map with a field in a specific direction.
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 18, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: lurkily on February 18, 2013, 08:53:49 AM
The feeling that you must ruin the surprise because you feel you can't play effectively without opening the map in the editor was my main objection.
Your feeling is based on the wrong assumption. Items crucial to beating the map should never be buried under the soil in my opinion, unless it's a puzzle map or clues are given. Otherwise these items should just be bonuses.
Bonuses like energy or tech that influence your performance were what I was thinking about - and I thought it was what you meant, as well.  If I'm wrong, my mistake.  I'm sure you know how influential the presence of a single gem might be in some tough CW2 maps, even if they aren't essential for victory.

The reason I bring this up isn't to try to demand that we make bad maps impossible.  That would be a fool's errand, as you've pointed out.  
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 18, 2013, 05:12:30 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 18, 2013, 03:27:59 PM
Titan suggestion: Calcifier

Description:
This Titan allows commanders to reinforce fragile elements of their infrastructure.  When "fired" at a structure on the same network, the Calcifier draws Anticreeper from the command node and then sends it to the target building, where it is compressed into a thin shell lining the exterior of that structure, helping to protect it from encroaching Creeper.

Game Effect:
The Calcifier consumes a set amount of Anticreeper when targeted at one of your buildings, and raises the maximum Health of that building by a set amount.  This can be done once for any given building.  This would allow Weapons to be made tougher, and would also allow Infrastructure buildings (such as Relays and Collectors) to survive for a short period of time when immersed in Creeper.
Er... what's wrong with simply making a protective puddle of AC around the unit in the first place? Doesn't this achieve the same thing, more or less?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 18, 2013, 05:50:33 PM
Titan suggestion: recycler

Cheaper cost but allows you to recycle unnecessary units and gain the energy from them back. Useful for people that have constantly changing networks.


p.s. also promotes helping the environment!
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 18, 2013, 07:43:02 PM
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on February 18, 2013, 05:50:33 PM
Titan suggestion: recycler

Cheaper cost but allows you to recycle unnecessary units and gain the energy from them back. Useful for people that have constantly changing networks.


p.s. also promotes helping the environment!
Reminds me of a flash game - RTS slash tower defense - where all your units had waste, and some produced smog . . . smog attracted more zombies, and waste could be eaten and they would power up, and with good recycling, you would actually be able to reclaim some resources from the trash that you collected.

Not sure this has the utility to be a titan, though.  Same with the calcifier - they're interesting ideas, but nothing about them said "titan" to me.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on February 18, 2013, 11:11:24 PM
Quote from: lurkily on February 18, 2013, 07:43:02 PM
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on February 18, 2013, 05:50:33 PM
Titan suggestion: recycler

Cheaper cost but allows you to recycle unnecessary units and gain the energy from them back. Useful for people that have constantly changing networks.


p.s. also promotes helping the environment!
Reminds me of a flash game - RTS slash tower defense - where all your units had waste, and some produced smog . . . smog attracted more zombies, and waste could be eaten and they would power up, and with good recycling, you would actually be able to reclaim some resources from the trash that you collected.

Not sure this has the utility to be a titan, though.  Same with the calcifier - they're interesting ideas, but nothing about them said "titan" to me.

Super Energy Apocalypse?
Power plants produced smog :)

Virgil said that at most, he'd release CW3 sometime in the first quarter of 2013.
So I am guessing it will be here soon?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 19, 2013, 12:07:25 AM
Quote from: Kingo on February 18, 2013, 11:11:24 PM
Virgil said that at most, he'd release CW3 sometime in the first quarter of 2013.

No, he didn't. Listen carefully between 25:30 and 26:30 (http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/12/dungeon-novice/).

It will be done when Virgil is happy with it and proud of it. And that's how it should be.

Now please be patient, so you will be able to play a game that will meet everyone's expectations.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 19, 2013, 09:05:10 AM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 19, 2013, 12:07:25 AM
Now please be patient, so you will be able to play a game that will meet everyone's expectations.

You see; there is the problem. Patience is difficult  ;)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 19, 2013, 09:30:10 AM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 19, 2013, 09:05:10 AM
You see; there is the problem. Patience is difficult  ;)

Patience is an essential skill for you to get along. I have unfortunate experience of another game dev that was so harasses by impatient fans that he shot down all interaction with his fan base.

If anything like that was to happen here, specific fans would be excommunicated.

Not pointing a finger at you, just making a general observation. :)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 19, 2013, 01:32:06 PM
Another story along the same vein - I worked for one game dev who had to crawl out of depression because he DIDN'T shut down communication with fans, but instead let himself feel that he was letting fans down, each time they complained about the update schedule.  That in itself slowed production down by a lot.

Luckily, it's good to see how many fans here are insistent that V take his time, and though they wait eagerly, are understanding of the time things take.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on February 19, 2013, 04:36:02 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 18, 2013, 10:55:56 AM
I'm sorry Shrike but I really hate the idea of a wind machine of any sort. I don't mean to offend someone but I truly despise the concept. Like I said before it takes away the element of adding wind in the first place. It removes the quirk of wind.

I absolutely support a wind changing device. But it should have an efficiency cap. I don't know what values wind operates with, so the numbers I use are an example. If the wind generator's power is capped at 3, the best you could do on a map that comes with a wind power of 5 is to slow it to a power of 2 (or increase it to 8 if it should suit you).
Maybe the wind generator could have three levels (low, med, high power) with preset strengths (1,2,3 or 1,2,4 or 1,5,10 or ...) and different energy requirements.
If you should think wind is essential to your map, just deactivate the generator for it.
For that matter, I would like random maps to come with a random selection of titans (not just none or all)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 19, 2013, 05:22:45 PM
I don't think wind manip should be sustainable at all.  It should be something you can charge up, then run for a maximum of X amount of time, not something you can run continuously just because you have enough reactors.

I think being able to establish even a temporary wind is incredibly helpful.  Being able to globally manipulate forces on a permanent basis because you have enough reactors is too much.  Limiting the request rate to charge this device slowly should be enough to limit this, I think.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 19, 2013, 09:33:17 PM
Yeah, balancing this one would be tricky.  Either exponential costs for increasing wind values, exponential or limited costs over time, or both combined would be good.  I see the primary use being the storm effect.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on February 20, 2013, 06:23:27 AM
Quote from: lurkily on February 19, 2013, 05:22:45 PM
I don't think wind manip should be sustainable at all.  It should be something you can charge up, then run for a maximum of X amount of time, not something you can run continuously just because you have enough reactors.

I think being able to establish even a temporary wind is incredibly helpful.  Being able to globally manipulate forces on a permanent basis because you have enough reactors is too much.  Limiting the request rate to charge this device slowly should be enough to limit this, I think.

I'm absolutely fine either way. Have it work continuously or for a limited time. That has nothing to do with a power cap (Although one might argue for a higher limit if the time is restricted).

If there were a time limit for the wind generator, it would charge up like very much like a maker. Then, different power settings would draw the stored energy at a different pace, so you have small effects over a longer time and stronger effects over a shorter time. It would be fine to stop the generator charging while it is active. I'm not yet sure if it should have the ability to activate without being fully charged. I lean towards it having to be fully charged before you can use it. This would raise other issues, though (e.g. what do you do if the generator is deactivated half-empty? Do you have to wait until it's fully charged again to reactivate it?)

Quote from: Shrike30 on February 19, 2013, 09:33:17 PM
I see the primary use being the storm effect.

Honestly, I don't care much about the storm effect.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 20, 2013, 09:56:29 AM
I would say wait for a full charge.  I would prefer not to introduce tactics like wind 'flickering', as is required on some CW2 maps with dark beams, if avoidable.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on February 20, 2013, 10:12:54 PM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 19, 2013, 12:07:25 AM
Quote from: Kingo on February 18, 2013, 11:11:24 PM
Virgil said that at most, he'd release CW3 sometime in the first quarter of 2013.

No, he didn't. Listen carefully between 25:30 and 26:30 (http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/12/dungeon-novice/).

It will be done when Virgil is happy with it and proud of it. And that's how it should be.

Now please be patient, so you will be able to play a game that will meet everyone's expectations.

What do you think i'm doing in the meantime? :P
I think he wrote the "publish in first quarter" thing in a different blog post...
Or my desperate mind made up that little lie to keep me going :)
Well, all I can say is I can't wait to see what the final product will be like :)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 21, 2013, 07:35:44 AM
Quote from: Kingo on February 20, 2013, 10:12:54 PMWhat do you think i'm doing in the meantime? :P
I think he wrote the "publish in first quarter" thing in a different blog post...
Or my desperate mind made up that little lie to keep me going :)
Well, all I can say is I can't wait to see what the final product will be like :)
I think he did, at one point, say something like that he wanted to publish by the end of the year, or at latest, first quarter.  After that, though, he said in-video 'Definitely within this next year, probably first half, first quarter, hmm, maybe.' (Paraphrased.)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 21, 2013, 09:36:59 AM
This is what Virgil uses as his indicator for readiness... Simply substitute "game" for "wine."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSs6DcA6dFI

What Virgil wishes is not really relevant - as my venerable grandfather (may his soul rest in peace) used to say: "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride."

And I now have a very strong suggestion. The next poster that posts twice about ship dates. even if separated by a number of posts, or days, weeks, will start experiencing posting bans.

I'm really tired of hearing about "When will the game ship?" and having to go through the same routine every time... 
/me mutters something about a FAQ as he stomps away.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 21, 2013, 12:34:14 PM
New Enemy Unit Suggestion: Crawler

Is produced in a nest or enemy unit. Then moves around and finds one of the player's supply lines, goes along it and blows up on a random unit along the supply path. Will have fairly low health so it can be easily stopped, but will move quickly once it reaches a supply line. Also moves faster if on digitalis. Health or speed could be adjusted by the person making the map. Also could be given a splash radius for if it hits a unit in an area where a player has built up a group of reactors like a radius of 1-3 sub-cells around the detonation area. Also as an added feature if you destroy all of the units on the path that lead from the Crawler's current position to the Command Center, it will blow up at its current position.


p.s. I had no idea what to do for a name for the unit.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 21, 2013, 12:36:52 PM
Quote from: ShadowDragon7015 on February 21, 2013, 12:34:14 PM
New Enemy Unit Suggestion: Crawler

Is produced in a nest or enemy unit. Then moves around and finds one of the player's supply lines, goes along it and blows up on a random unit along the supply path. Will have fairly low health so it can be easily stopped, but will move quickly once it reaches a supply line. Also moves faster if on digitalis. Health or speed could be adjusted by the person making the map. Also could be given a splash radius for if it hits a unit in an area where a player has built up a group of reactors like a radius of 1-3 sub-cells around the detonation area. Also as an added feature if you destroy all of the units on the path that lead from the Crawler's current position to the Command Center, it will blow up at its current position.


p.s. I had no idea what to do for a name for the unit.

I remember something almost exactly like this being suggested and turned down quite a few pages back in this thread or the old one.
Will even more likely be turned down now than then. :(
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 21, 2013, 12:40:25 PM
If its turned down then can someone PM me the CRPL code for making a unit trail along the network?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on February 21, 2013, 03:14:56 PM
You know, if we are generally trying to come up with new Titan ideas, I think at this point they should at least be almost just super weapons. I have seen quite a few Titan ideas that do not have as much substance on the offensive as the bertha does an. Even the crawler appears to have some sort of economic/infrastructure-related limit. I am thinking super weapons that pretty much load up on packets and do something highly painful or manipulative to creeper (for one thing, the bertha has a large shot that clears a large amount of concentrated creeper seemingly regardless of depth and has infinite range.

On an unrelated note: one thing I would like to see is more of a need for tiny patches of ground (at other levels (like in the Aether clip on the blog) on a large, otherwise flat stretch of ground where infrastructure happens) to be terraformed. Maybe not a need, but I think there ought to be a significant benefit noted for terraforming ground at your starting base so that it is all flat and has none of those specs of uneven ground. At the moment, it appears there is almost (I repeat: ALMOST) no good reason to terraform for non-offensive reasons.

Also, I am beginning to wonder if there should be a need for void to be able to be made into ground by either something on the creeper or good side. After seeing CW2 gateways affect the terrain, I think the creeper side in 3 should have something that can affect the terrain here.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on February 21, 2013, 03:32:43 PM
Currently CRPL can change terrain and add/remove walls. The only thing CRPL can't (or I don't know about it) is join the player network and ask for packets.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 21, 2013, 03:37:13 PM
It could however scan the area for collectors, move from one to another and do terrible things over there (except asking for packets).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Michionlion on February 21, 2013, 08:33:18 PM
What you could do is have a place to build a 'sacrifice' unit, that the core would then destroy (or use in some other way) for energy or whatever.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 22, 2013, 11:16:26 AM
Well I think Virgil is looking for a unit that doesn't require a crap load of packets and destroys a large amount of creeper. I think he would prefer some sort of unique mechanic that doesn't completely change to game but provides a unique asset.

As for this Crawler enemy isn't that essentially just a land phantom?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on February 22, 2013, 11:24:32 AM
Thats partially what i was thinking of for the crawler. it would be like a phantom.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 22, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Quote from: 4xC on February 21, 2013, 03:14:56 PM
On an unrelated note: one thing I would like to see is more of a need for tiny patches of ground (at other levels (like in the Aether clip on the blog) on a large, otherwise flat stretch of ground where infrastructure happens) to be terraformed. Maybe not a need, but I think there ought to be a significant benefit noted for terraforming ground at your starting base so that it is all flat and has none of those specs of uneven ground. At the moment, it appears there is almost (I repeat: ALMOST) no good reason to terraform for non-offensive reasons.
I think that's a byproduct of Reactors more than anything else.  Once your infrastructure is developed to the point where you can drag-place 10 reactors without really thinking about it, the amount of effort involved in constructing a Terp and levelling those little bits and pieces around your base that mess with Collector efficiency isn't really worthwhile.  If Collectors produced more energy (or Reactors less) it might be worthwhile, but I don't think it'd really add anything on maps where you've got room to play.

Now, on those maps where you're really begging for space, it's another story entirely I'd think.  But we don't really see many of those posted.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on February 23, 2013, 07:56:56 AM
Sounds more like a CW2 drone - constrained by the network instead of geography.

A phantom and a spore are basically the same thing, but I don't think these sound much like spores . . .
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 23, 2013, 09:34:37 AM
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 22, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
If Collectors produced more energy (or Reactors less) it might be worthwhile

Maybe nice to know that the efficiency-ratio between a collector and a reactor is about 4 :1, while this was about 2:1 in CW1. :)

Quote from: Shrike30 on February 22, 2013, 08:26:44 PM
Now, on those maps where you're really begging for space, it's another story entirely I'd think.  But we don't really see many of those posted.

I think on most maps you've seen so far Virgil wanted to demonstrate a certain feature and it would make the video much longer if space was much restricted and the build up of the economy took more time. This probably will vary a lot in the maps you'll be playing, especially the custom maps. I always like to make space a constraint, so more choices have to be made during early game.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on February 23, 2013, 09:53:10 AM
as for reactor/collector rivalry
reactors don't make power
they boost al collector out puts by 1.
they do this by manipulating black holes to
increase collector output.
this is a cw1 mechanick so i ciold be wrong.
either way lets focus on heavy artillery

just what i know.
tornado

PS:rhyme not intended.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 23, 2013, 10:22:35 AM
Quote from: tornado on February 23, 2013, 09:53:10 AM
as for reactor/collector rivalry
reactors don't make power
they boost al collector out puts by 1.
they do this by manipulating black holes to
increase collector output.
this is a cw1 mechanick so i ciold be wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. It does not work like that at all in neither CW1 nor CW3.

There are upgrades however that increase the total energy output (collectors+reactors+Odin City/CNs) by a factor. In CW1 there's just 1 upgrade: +10% energy. In CW3 there will be many more.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on February 24, 2013, 04:00:00 PM
Look it up by looking in
The help guide for cw1
If you haven't got it
Your problem not mine

Spoiler
ie:cw training sim
Or the main game
[close]
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 24, 2013, 04:48:04 PM
Lol! ;D

A CW1 reactor always delivers 0.3 energy. A collector produces 0.004 energy per green square (max = 45 x 0.004 = 0.18).

Suggested further reading:
- Virgil about reactors (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=246.msg1686#msg1686)
- CW1 Game Mechanics Quiz (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=5081.msg27012#msg27012)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on February 24, 2013, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: UpperKEES on February 23, 2013, 09:34:37 AM
Maybe nice to know that the efficiency-ratio between a collector and a reactor is about 4 :1, while this was about 2:1 in CW1. :)

So there really isn't that much point in making reactors is there.
I am actually really upset that collectors seem to be NEARLY useless and after 5 minutes there is no point in making collectors when Reactors make so much more energy. I understand we're really far into game development(really far)but I let out a little whimper to see all that empty unused space in videos and screenshots.

In CW1 there was reason for making Reactors much stronger because of the lack of space. But in CW3 there is much more space so it would make sense to make collectors more important and powerful in proportion to reactors. But I trust and respect Virgil's decision

I just want collectors to be a little bit more important.

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on February 24, 2013, 05:36:57 PM
Quote from: tornado on February 23, 2013, 09:53:10 AM
as for reactor/collector rivalry
reactors don't make power
they boost al collector out puts by 1.
they do this by manipulating black holes to
increase collector output.
this is a cw1 mechanick so i ciold be wrong.
either way lets focus on heavy artillery

just what i know.
tornado

PS:rhyme not intended.

Hello Tornado.

I think you misinterpreted something that you read in the user guides.

Collectors in CW1 collect a small fraction of energy for every green cell. If they are at their biggest area, they collect .18 energy per collector. If you put collectors so their green areas (we call it Soylent Green - look it up ;)) overlap, they don't create more energy. So widely spaced collectors are the most energy-efficient configuration.

Reactors in CW2 collect about .3 energy per reactor. You can stick them as close together as you wish, but they must be connected to the network via collectors or relays.

There is only an upgrade for energy efficiency. It is applied as a multiplier to the total amount of energy collected.

Your model would cause very large energy spikes. Suppose we have 50 collectors that each collect .18 energy for a total of 9 energy . Now we build one reactor and we get an increase of 1 energy per collector to a total of 59 energy!
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 24, 2013, 05:53:47 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on February 24, 2013, 05:04:40 PM
So there really isn't that much point in making reactors is there.
I am actually really upset that collectors seem to be NEARLY useless and after 5 minutes there is no point in making collectors when Reactors make so much more energy. I understand we're really far into game development(really far)but I let out a little whimper to see all that empty unused space in videos and screenshots.

In CW1 there was reason for making Reactors much stronger because of the lack of space. But in CW3 there is much more space so it would make sense to make collectors more important and powerful in proportion to reactors. But I trust and respect Virgil's decision

I just want collectors to be a little bit more important.

You will have to build more reactors than you think (or initially have space for). ;) CW3 weapons demand more energy. I can't go into details as you may understand, but the 10-20 energy that was usually sufficient to beat a CW1 map won't be enough in CW3. This means space still remains a constraint and reactors will still be required to operate your units properly.

To me balance is the most important aspect of the game. I have looked into these issues a lot (and still do so), to make sure that every unit has its place and none of them are overpowered. The same goes for applied upgrades for instance.

By the way, you are right that maps can be larger (although they don't have to be), but that doesn't mean you will have more space to build. With 10 elevation levels there will be much more uneven terrain and if there is flat terrain, the Creeper arrive will sooner (as emitters are also stronger). It's all up to the map makers to make it interesting. Maybe now you think: I will just use a Terp to flatten my entire base, but you will first need the resources for that. That is, if the map maker decided to let you build a Terp in the first place..... ;)

Edit:

I think I misunderstood you after you misunderstood me. In CW1 a collector was about twice as efficient as a reactor (half the output, but 4 times as cheap). In CW3 a collector is even more powerful compared to what you have to invest to build it, so whenever you have the space for them, it's definitely the best option (just like it is in CW1). This however doesn't mean energy has become cheap, as you can read above.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on February 25, 2013, 03:07:52 PM
You all have me confused. In the CW1 unit database on the gameitself, it says under reactors that they can produce energy from single points in space time even though it says they improve collector intake technology as well. Why do I see stuff that says they do not produce energy and only help collectors on this forum when the database in question seems to say otherwise?

By the way, to those who think that CN's collect energy, I have to question that thought. As we have seen in the blog clips, CN's do not have the same collection fields that Odin City has, so how can it collect its own energy exactly? I heard that CN's have their own reactors to collect small amounts of energy like OC has those small collection fields, but something does not make sense about this.

Speaking of collection, how can CW3 players currently tell what the actual rates of collection and depletion for energy and AC are? All there appears to be are bars with no numbers and ergo, no displayable rates.

On an unrelated note: having seen it said on this thread that the Crawler is a land version of the spore and phantom, I suddenly feel like someone has only taken the old Worm's ability to move underground.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Karsten75 on February 25, 2013, 03:38:24 PM
Quote from: 4xC on February 25, 2013, 03:07:52 PM
You all have me confused. In the CW1 unit database on the gameitself, it says under reactors that they can produce energy from single points in space time even though it says they improve collector intake technology as well. Why do I see stuff that says they do not produce energy and only help collectors on this forum when the database in question seems to say otherwise?

By the way, to those who think that CN's collect energy, I have to question that thought. As we have seen in the blog clips, CN's do not have the same collection fields that Odin City has, so how can it collect its own energy exactly? I heard that CN's have their own reactors to collect small amounts of energy like OC has those small collection fields, but something does not make sense about this.

Speaking of collection, how can CW3 players currently tell what the actual rates of collection and depletion for energy and AC are? All there appears to be are bars with no numbers and ergo, no displayable rates.

On an unrelated note: having seen it said on this thread that the Crawler is a land version of the spore and phantom, I suddenly feel like someone has only taken the old Worm's ability to move underground.

My guess is that English is maybe not your first language (if you ask me.. :)) That can explain the interpertation problem with what Virgil wrote way back with CW1. And would explain a lot of weird CW1  maps I've seem over time.

What Virgil really intended to say was that collectors need space (level terrain) to be most efficient and reactors are more efficient than collectors. The energy obtained from collectors and reactors are independent and not a influenced by one another.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on February 27, 2013, 09:27:22 AM
So reactors do make their own energy? Is that what you are telling me? That is all I wanted to know.

And by the way, English happens to be my native tongue, pal. The interpretation problem is the fact that fan's words seem to decide a lot of things until late in time when there is confirmation or change that is completely unexpected.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: MizInIA on February 27, 2013, 10:27:41 AM
Quote from: 4xC on February 25, 2013, 03:07:52 PM
Speaking of collection, how can CW3 players currently tell what the actual rates of collection and depletion for energy and AC are? All there appears to be are bars with no numbers and ergo, no displayable rates.

I think I remember Virgil saying in one of the videos that there is still a top status bar like in CW2 but it is hideable (sp) and he has it hidden to see more of the map.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 28, 2013, 12:48:01 PM
I'd like to see it have a couple of possible locations, one of them being alongside my bottom menu. Rather than being centered, have the bottom (build?) menu slid to the left, and my economy information displayed in the newly available space on the right.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on February 28, 2013, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 28, 2013, 12:48:01 PM
I'd like to see it have a couple of possible locations, one of them being alongside my bottom menu. Rather than being centered, have the bottom (build?) menu slid to the left, and my economy information displayed in the newly available space on the right.
Basically CW1 style?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on February 28, 2013, 05:00:51 PM
Since we are now talking about the CW3 UI, I would suggest that whatever is displayed in large form be displayed off of the map screen. That is in the sense that it is on the screen in 2. I am thinking something along the lines of the Starcraft 2 UI.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on February 28, 2013, 05:22:13 PM
You mean a detachable HUD?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on February 28, 2013, 07:24:25 PM
Quote from: hoodwink on February 28, 2013, 03:10:11 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on February 28, 2013, 12:48:01 PM
I'd like to see it have a couple of possible locations, one of them being alongside my bottom menu. Rather than being centered, have the bottom (build?) menu slid to the left, and my economy information displayed in the newly available space on the right.
Basically CW1 style?
Yeah, like that. I'd rather only lose screen real estate to GUI on one side of the screen.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: joshuad156 on March 01, 2013, 05:53:23 PM
Better custom map voting or categorization options.  Also, including more of this info on the map selection screen (where you actually launch the map you downloaded).  Let me explain.

(I tried searching and reading through the hundreds of posts so far and didn't see anything regarding this.  So I'm posting here just in case it's useful.)

I love custom maps!  But one of my gripes about finding custom maps is the lack of solid information on what a particular map is like.  This was better in CW1, as maps were categorized as easy/medium/hard/expert only.  I REALLY miss this in the CW2 maps.  I like the simplicity of thumbs up/thumbs down on the CW2 custom maps, but unfortunately people who look for one kind of map (hard vs easy, puzzle vs slogfest, short vs long, etc) and find something different, very very often give the map a thumbs down.  This is often misleading.  Overall, I find that the CW2 map TU/TD rating is mildly helpful (always interested in a 100/1 rated map!), but more often than not I find highly rated maps being short and very simple to complete (which are somewhat boring for me).  I like a good, challenging (but not STUPID HARD) map that requires me to think a little to beat it.  There is nothing in the CW2 "Find Maps Online" page that helps identify these maps.  I have a much easier time on the CW1 map site due to the simple display of map difficulty.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on March 01, 2013, 10:16:38 PM
A better map explanation and voting system is guaranteed in CW3 don't worry.

Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: joshuad156 on March 02, 2013, 05:26:45 PM
Quote from: Chawe800 on March 01, 2013, 10:16:38 PM
A better map explanation and voting system is guaranteed in CW3 don't worry.

As if I wasn't excited enough to play CW3 (it's looking really good), this is most excellent news!   8)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on March 02, 2013, 05:32:20 PM
Keep in mind, what we're getting is not an improvement on what went before.  What's V has described on the blog is very different.  The things that have been laid out factually is that it is fully in-game, with custom maps arranged into systems as if they were in a region of space, with a separate sector for maps that you have downloaded, which you can arrange to your liking.

How this pans out in terms of searches and organization and finding what you want is yet to be explained.  I expect that most people will consider it 'better', but there will always be holdouts.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Hunter Seeker on March 05, 2013, 03:01:59 PM
I would like to be able to change the default settings of units being built.  For example Strafer (auto launch) and Sprayer (collection field).  Different players style would prefer different default selections for these abilities.  Enabling a player to default these settings to their preference would be nice.  This could be a global setting for the player or map-specific. 
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on March 05, 2013, 07:01:47 PM
Quote from: Hunter Seeker on March 05, 2013, 03:01:59 PM
I would like to be able to change the default settings of units being built.  For example Strafer (auto launch) and Sprayer (collection field).  Different players style would prefer different default selections for these abilities.  Enabling a player to default these settings to their preference would be nice.  This could be a global setting for the player or map-specific. 


WHile that is interesting I doubt it'll be incorporated. Virgil won't code for stuff that only 10% of potential users would use. He rather focuses on the big picture stuff, the things most people playing the game would use (or at least a third)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on March 06, 2013, 01:50:20 AM
Quote from: Chawe800 on March 05, 2013, 07:01:47 PM
Quote from: Hunter Seeker on March 05, 2013, 03:01:59 PM
I would like to be able to change the default settings of units being built.  For example Strafer (auto launch) and Sprayer (collection field).  Different players style would prefer different default selections for these abilities.  Enabling a player to default these settings to their preference would be nice.  This could be a global setting for the player or map-specific. 


WHile that is interesting I doubt it'll be incorporated. Virgil won't code for stuff that only 10% of potential users would use. He rather focuses on the big picture stuff, the things most people playing the game would use (or at least a third)
Only for 1% of the users will use CRPL... I would like to see an option to change defaults =)
Any extra feature will give a slightly higher rating and that means more sales.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on March 06, 2013, 08:03:31 AM
Quote from: J on March 06, 2013, 01:50:20 AM
Only for 1% of the users will use CRPL... I would like to see an option to change defaults =)
Any extra feature will give a slightly higher rating and that means more sales.

CRPL is kind of different - it's a feature used by 1%, but which benefits 99%.  I'm not sure it could be used to implement things like this - from what we've been shown, CRPL seems very capable of responding to the environment, but doesn't look capable of changing the underlying assumptions of the engine. 

Feature heavy is not necessarily better, particularly for the casual crowd.  It's very easy to cause information overload in a mind that's just not interested in working for their play - they just go play something else instead of experimenting or reading instructions.  Complex UI's with too many options can hurt your ratings just as easily as neglecting important options.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on March 06, 2013, 09:13:32 AM
True. But this feature does not have to show up on the UI. It could be incorporated in a general options menu, which will surely be there (?).
But maybe I did not understand the proposal correctly. You wouldn't change these settings on a map to map basis, but set them once, right?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on March 06, 2013, 09:34:39 AM
Of course you would only have to set them once. If someone writes "...and you're even able to customise hotkeys and defaults!" about your game I'm pretty sure more people would buy it. If people are irritated by the default setting the rating will be lower - less sales. Everything should be as intuitive as possible (except the (custom) maps :P)
Just add one line in the story missions that you could go to advanced options and change stuff there and people who don't want it can play further without spending any more more time on it.

Suggestion:
A seperate options tab for advanced users, here you can set your own defaults and choose new hotkeys. Practically everything that makes the game easier to play for you and what you'll probably only change the first week(s).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on March 06, 2013, 11:27:26 AM
I'd like that tab. Every map I play I have to keep prioritizing my pulse cannons to Digitalis (instead of Runners or Creeper). Being able to change that for every map would probably save me 1-2 days every year. ;)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on March 06, 2013, 11:36:13 AM
I think we'd all like something like that. My preference is that if you set a unit to build with specific options, those options are persisted in future builds of the same unit type until you change them. However, I'm definitely NOT going to ask Virgil at this point in time to make any changes like this. It may be a PITA, but I'd rather have the game with this PITA than have to wait another extra day tagged on to the end.

I'm pretty sure Virgil has a "push list" of things that may make the game nicer and that he may release an update after the game is ready. some things may make it into that depending on how easy it is to fit them into the existing framework.  This might be an item for evaluation and consideration.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on March 07, 2013, 08:59:15 AM
PC's targeting prioritizing runners may possibly be a holdover from when sniper units didn't exist, and it appeared that PC's were the counter to runners.

EDIT: The NACDAR blog post shows good evidence of PC's pre-sniper role.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on March 07, 2013, 10:59:58 AM
I'm not sure why PCs couldn't still target runners. It's not the most efficient way to kill them, but it makes intuitive sense that it should happen.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on March 07, 2013, 12:42:27 PM
I can not say for sure, obviously, but I'd think that PC are fairly useless against runners due to them being stunned most of the time. I'd imagine you'd need quite a number of PCs dealing with one lonely runner to do any useful damage.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on March 07, 2013, 12:51:23 PM
There are three things PCs can shoot at - Runners, Digitalis and Creeper. In varying circumstances, different targeting priorities may make sense - similar to the Blaster's simpler targeting priorities in CW2.

We're really not at liberty to discuss much more than that. At least not until later... much later.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on March 07, 2013, 08:54:05 PM
Ah!  I misspoke.  I meant to refer to priorities only.  Edited my post to make that clearer.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on March 09, 2013, 01:27:32 AM
I see PC's working on runners when they are on PZ's and have too much range to be stunned, but if this is mainly for direct engagement in close-quarters combat, I cannot imagine PC's working out. Perhaps Shields should migitate stunning effects?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on March 09, 2013, 07:08:04 AM
in my opinion laws of physics shold aply unless alterd buy higher entitys
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on March 10, 2013, 01:15:14 AM
A bunch of PCs parked next to each other should be able to deal with runners through target saturation (can't stun 'em all before one of them shoots back) but the sniper should be the more space and energy efficient means of dealing with them. This appears to already be the case.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on March 10, 2013, 09:08:49 AM
All depends on how much damage PC's deal to runners.  They're no longer the main counter to runners, so they don't need to do lots of runner damage.  Also depends on how much range the runners have - they may or may not be able to strike un-upgraded PC's.  Worst case, it may take a lot of PC's to effectively defend against runners, ideally with a decoy out front, too.

The other thing to consider is that if a pulse-cannon can out-range runners, they don't need to kill them.  By targeting digitalis, they can control runners' mobility without killing them.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on March 10, 2013, 11:28:39 AM
I get the idea (mainly from the videos such as NACDAR and so forth) that runners have a larger range than PCs. Therefore you must either decoy, upgrade range, or have quite a few of them. You could probably even bring in mortars or strafers to kill off the digi if the runner problem really gets That annoying.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on March 10, 2013, 11:32:15 AM
Quote from: hoodwink on March 10, 2013, 11:28:39 AM
I get the idea (mainly from the videos such as NACDAR and so forth) that runners have a larger range than PCs. Therefore you must either decoy, upgrade range, or have quite a few of them. You could probably even bring in mortars or strafers to kill off the digi if the runner problem really gets That annoying.
NACDAR was also recorded before snipers were introduced.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on March 10, 2013, 02:56:27 PM
Quote from: lurkily on March 10, 2013, 11:32:15 AM
Quote from: hoodwink on March 10, 2013, 11:28:39 AM
I get the idea (mainly from the videos such as NACDAR and so forth) that runners have a larger range than PCs. Therefore you must either decoy, upgrade range, or have quite a few of them. You could probably even bring in mortars or strafers to kill off the digi if the runner problem really gets That annoying.
NACDAR was also recorded before snipers were introduced.

Yes, but I'm trying to point out how somebody would go about attacking runners without snipers (since if they can quite easily, the sniper does not have much of a use). The video is useful for this because it does feature them.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: koker93 on March 10, 2013, 07:06:13 PM
You can probably overwhelm runners with PC's.  If a runner can stun 4 units before it gets into PC range, then you need 5 to stun one runner.  So a group of 10 PCs should be able to handle a few runners.  but a lot of maps dont have room for an unlimited amount of weapons to be place don the front of the battle.  So you can accomplish the same thing as a sniper does with PCs but would you want to?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: DaMetaEX on March 11, 2013, 01:22:07 AM
Quote from: hoodwink on March 10, 2013, 02:56:27 PM
Quote from: lurkily on March 10, 2013, 11:32:15 AM
Quote from: hoodwink on March 10, 2013, 11:28:39 AM
I get the idea (mainly from the videos such as NACDAR and so forth) that runners have a larger range than PCs. Therefore you must either decoy, upgrade range, or have quite a few of them. You could probably even bring in mortars or strafers to kill off the digi if the runner problem really gets That annoying.
NACDAR was also recorded before snipers were introduced.

Yes, but I'm trying to point out how somebody would go about attacking runners without snipers (since if they can quite easily, the sniper does not have much of a use). The video is useful for this because it does feature them.
snipers have no use eh? then how about a runner charging in on the digitalis like in CW2 that had a [large] load of life your PCs stratogy might be able to kill it eventually but then again it would also backfire since as stated in NACDAR the creatures can explode into creep so a Large life one would carry a payload equivlant to 3 maybe 4 emitters pumping out for 4 cycles. using snipers will kill the pay load long before it gets too close to deal with

Edited for language -G.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on March 11, 2013, 02:59:17 AM
Snipers have some uses against runners but that's pretty much the limit of their ability. Perhaps expanding upon their functionality, e.g. by the ability to intercept CRPL projectiles, could make them a tad bit more handy.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on March 11, 2013, 09:01:57 AM
In custom maps, maybe so. But in the campaign where I think it will matter the most, we need something else. I.E. kill digitalis that is farthest from it within its range until the only remaining digitalis is closer to the sniper or the far-off digitalis reappears. When I think "sniper", I think "versatile distant-killer" and what better way to exemplify this trait without directly destroying structures in place of nullifiers I wonder?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on March 11, 2013, 09:37:20 AM
Somehow, having one-purpose-only-weapons feels more real to me.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on March 11, 2013, 01:41:32 PM
More real maybe, but inconsistent. The only other weapon system that has one target is the particle beam.  Both the particle beam and sniper tower could have some overlap or even be combined into the same structure without taking much away from the game.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on March 11, 2013, 01:57:53 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on March 11, 2013, 01:41:32 PM
More real maybe, but inconsistent. The only other weapon system that has one target is the particle beam.  Both the particle beam and sniper tower could have some overlap or even be combined into the same structure without taking much away from the game.

We talked about this, but then the particle beam may be empty when spores launch....  Not the situation you want to find yourself in.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on March 11, 2013, 02:28:24 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on March 11, 2013, 01:57:53 PM
Quote from: Shrike30 on March 11, 2013, 01:41:32 PM
More real maybe, but inconsistent. The only other weapon system that has one target is the particle beam.  Both the particle beam and sniper tower could have some overlap or even be combined into the same structure without taking much away from the game.

We talked about this, but then the particle beam may be empty when spores launch....  Not the situation you want to find yourself in.
I think this would add to the game, to position forward beams as well as base-covering beams. This would add a nice tactical challenge of keeping your beams stocked when the spore attack hits. Maybe you'll even want to temporarily stop them firing at runners for this. :D
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on March 12, 2013, 02:41:30 AM
It would seem like that would be a stronger arguement for nested defenses or even a "save ammo" mode (where the beam tower won't run its magazine below 50% shooting at runners).  Not that I'm insisting these towers must be merged, it just seems like an elegant combination of two limited use towers into one handier tower.  Ah well :)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on March 12, 2013, 08:25:35 AM
Quote from: hoodwink on March 10, 2013, 02:56:27 PM
Quote from: lurkily on March 10, 2013, 11:32:15 AM
Quote from: hoodwink on March 10, 2013, 11:28:39 AM
I get the idea (mainly from the videos such as NACDAR and so forth) that runners have a larger range than PCs. Therefore you must either decoy, upgrade range, or have quite a few of them. You could probably even bring in mortars or strafers to kill off the digi if the runner problem really gets That annoying.
NACDAR was also recorded before snipers were introduced.

Yes, but I'm trying to point out how somebody would go about attacking runners without snipers (since if they can quite easily, the sniper does not have much of a use). The video is useful for this because it does feature them.
Easily.  Upgrade PC's range, and prioritize digitalis.  Use this to push the digi back so runners can't get into stun range.  Eventually, isolate a runner nest from digi, and let the runners die as any new runners are isolated from digi.

If you control digi, you control runners.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: UpperKEES on March 12, 2013, 09:56:28 AM
Quote from: lurkily on March 12, 2013, 08:25:35 AM
If you control digi, you control runners.

Yep, and that's why I'd like my PC's to prioritize Digi by default (and Creeper in second place).
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: lurkily on March 12, 2013, 10:45:39 AM
Quote from: UpperKEES on March 12, 2013, 09:56:28 AM
Quote from: lurkily on March 12, 2013, 08:25:35 AMIf you control digi, you control runners.
Yep, and that's why I'd like my PC's to prioritize Digi by default (and Creeper in second place).
Would all depend on PC's un-upgraded range vs the runners in the final product.

If we're talking about losing the snipers, I wouldn't want to require upgrades to deal with runners.  But it does look like targeting digi will still be the typically most useful setting.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on March 12, 2013, 05:15:34 PM
Especially if rounds fired at Digitalis damage any Creeper on top of the Digitalis.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on March 13, 2013, 05:34:46 PM
Idea

Digitalis remote weapon
It controls digitalis at high energy
Cost and is temporary
Probably a good Titan weapon

Just a suggestion
Tornado
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: hoodwink on March 13, 2013, 06:09:58 PM
Quote from: tornado on March 13, 2013, 05:34:46 PM
Digitalis remote weapon
It controls digitalis

Hold up there, you'll have to bit more specific than that. Besides, i'm personally in favour of something that can blow it up rather than 'control' it. (Think Bertha)
Are you suggesting it is to electronically disable (like an EMP or something) the digitalis in a certain area/in the whole map for a short time? Interesting idea, but it seems overpowered and a bit ominous.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Chawe800 on March 13, 2013, 07:23:27 PM
I do like the Idea but not all maps have digitalis so it could also have a cool purpose against normal creeper too. Like maybe some sort of AC converter of EMP flashiness or something.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on March 15, 2013, 04:28:50 AM
The idea was to control it and possibly convert creeper to
Ac.another posibility is to also reamove its limits.

Just a digestion

Tornado
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on March 19, 2013, 11:30:55 AM
Good idea, but not only is CW3 too thoroughly developed, digitalis does not seem like something to prioritize controlling unless potential CW4 comes out with AntiDigitalis.  :D

I would like for there to be a Titan or Orbital that can convert Creeper to AC, but we will just have to wait and see if the released product has it.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on March 19, 2013, 04:16:29 PM
I could see some utility for a titan able to "salt the earth" in areas where digitalis would normally grow, allowing a Commander to keep it from regrowing.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on March 19, 2013, 11:07:17 PM
Possibility for a unit could be something that claws across an area killing the digitalis there and stopping its growth there for a certain period of time.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on March 20, 2013, 03:00:09 AM
Randomly Generated Map Ideas

In Virgil's most recent blog post "The Bulk" he hinted at some new randomly generated maps, like the code maps of CW2. Personally I'd like to see more levels of customization over these maps to get a play-style more honed in to the person in question. This could be done by having an 'advanced' sub-menu for controlling minute details which add to the maps splendor. Therefore I believe these features should be included:

1. Difficulty scrollbar (with a type your specific number in a box thing next to it) this gives control over the amount of creeper given per an emitter pulse, the amount of runners released per second, etc. Ramping this up makes maps much more tedious.
2. Enemy Presence Bar Graph Setup-Drag up the amount of each unit, with a little icon on the x axis, and move the bar up and down the y axis(form 0 to 80 for example). Thereby you can control how many emitters  there are, runner nests, Warp Inhibitors, Anti-Air zones etc.
3. Terrain Type(colour)- This alters the algorithms to display different terrain types, e.g. desert, tundra or wasteland(metropolis perhaps). Which changes the visual appeal of the map as well as some of the terrain features.
4. Topography(altitudes)- Control how high-and-low everything goes(altitude) whether it is a plateau/flat/sharp mountain. If it has dents in the terrain or is smooth, and perhaps other terrain features(like nature-advanced). Advanced options could set special 'structures' on the map.
5. Unit Access(Advanced)- Set whether specific units are locked or not(by default none locked)- Could also depend on how far you are in the story missions?
6. Preview Screen- So you don't have to open the map beforehand.
7. Share Feature- Found a particularly amazing seed? Upload it to knuckle-cracker Randomly Generated Maps section.
8. Digitalis- Control how many factories for digitalis there are as well as the type of spread(tree branch, flood, etc). Settings to control distance from emitters can also be selected, otherwise there is random placement.
9. Map Size- Small, Medium, Large, Gigantic


Feel free to add to that guys, I'll edit it any additional ideas here on this topic as it comes :)

Asteroid (Belts):

On another note, asteroid belts ( as well individual asteroids, or even comets!) in individual solar systems would be a great feature. It would also allow for those space-maps.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on March 20, 2013, 08:51:07 AM
Quite a few ot those are attributes I think need to be displayed upon each custom map before anyone actually plays it. Not knowing some similar stats for CW2 custom maps beforehand is rather irksome.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on March 20, 2013, 09:38:03 AM
I'm afraid I don't like most of these proposed options. Apart from 6 and 7 (and probably 4, that's just colouring, isn't it?), which ought to be a given.
The others add too much individuality to make any competition regarding map times (e.g. weekly tournaments) extremely hard and complicated and not very meaningful. The seed as such gives the topography, doesn't it? Seed + difficulty level (Do we need more than 3? Definitely no more than 5) gives number of enemy structures, which in any case is relative to map  size. Are there just a distinct number of map sizes or could they be any size you wish? I'd vote for distinct map sizes (e.g. tiny, small, medium, large, huge, gigantic). I don't really care whether a specific seed means a specific map size, or if any seed produces a (slightly) different map for the different sizes (as in CW2). After all, map size could be defined by one (additional) digit (first/last) in the seed, couldn't it?

Just my opinion.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: TrickyDragon on March 20, 2013, 11:32:23 AM
How about we over simplify the seed generation and use one seed for a system...   Specify some constants such as general difficulty, enemy restrictions and system size and let one seed generate a system....   We could even call the seed "singularity coordinates"
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: BGMFH on March 20, 2013, 12:17:06 PM
I really like the singularity seed / system generated idea
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Michionlion on March 20, 2013, 02:32:43 PM
Quote from: TrickyDragon on March 20, 2013, 11:32:23 AM
How about we over simplify the seed generation and use one seed for a system...   Specify some constants such as general difficulty, enemy restrictions and system size and let one seed generate a system....   We could even call the seed "singularity coordinates"

I like it.  That would provide some other tournament style things too, using only one seed.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: BGMFH on March 20, 2013, 03:59:26 PM
Quote from: Michionlion on March 20, 2013, 02:32:43 PM
Quote from: TrickyDragon on March 20, 2013, 11:32:23 AM
How about we over simplify the seed generation and use one seed for a system...   Specify some constants such as general difficulty, enemy restrictions and system size and let one seed generate a system....   We could even call the seed "singularity coordinates"

I like it.  That would provide some other tournament style things too, using only one seed.

Exactly.  Not just 1 map, a tournament could define a seed for each round of competition, and it would be less likely to hinge on one skill.  Now all we need are leader board for systems, not just maps.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Mr.H on March 20, 2013, 04:24:42 PM
Quote from: Ronini on March 20, 2013, 09:38:03 AM
I'm afraid I don't like most of these proposed options. Apart from 6 and 7 (and probably 4, that's just colouring, isn't it?), which ought to be a given.
The others add too much individuality to make any competition regarding map times (e.g. weekly tournaments) extremely hard and complicated and not very meaningful. The seed as such gives the topography, doesn't it? Seed + difficulty level (Do we need more than 3? Definitely no more than 5) gives number of enemy structures, which in any case is relative to map  size. Are there just a distinct number of map sizes or could they be any size you wish? I'd vote for distinct map sizes (e.g. tiny, small, medium, large, huge, gigantic). I don't really care whether a specific seed means a specific map size, or if any seed produces a (slightly) different map for the different sizes (as in CW2). After all, map size could be defined by one (additional) digit (first/last) in the seed, couldn't it?

Just my opinion.
Most are those are advanced options. As for the individuality, each part of the selection is incorporated into the seed alongside it. So it would retain the same difficulty and such when shared.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Shrike30 on March 20, 2013, 07:56:28 PM
Quote from: Mr.H on March 20, 2013, 03:00:09 AM
Asteroid (Belts):

On another note, asteroid belts ( as well individual asteroids, or even comets!) in individual solar systems would be a great feature. It would also allow for those space-maps.

Would it be possible to have maps that wrap around at the edges, or at least at two edges?  I got to thinking it might be possible to play a map that is the entirety of an asteroid belt or a planet's rings, where when you scroll far enough to one side you simply wrap around to the other side of the map.  I realize there's issues of scale here, but happily CW games never established how large or small anything was :)
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on March 23, 2013, 12:33:53 AM
I posted that over a year ago under the concept
That most planets are round
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on April 03, 2013, 10:43:36 AM
Since CW3 is pretty much on the brink of release, I have to ask how close this thread and all other pre-release topics and threads are to being locked?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on April 03, 2013, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: tornado on March 23, 2013, 12:33:53 AM
I posted that over a year ago under the concept
That most planets are round

I have been talking to Virgil about wrap-around maps as well, since a favorite game of mine employs this technique. Unfortunately, I don't think it will be in CW3.

Quote from: 4xC on April 03, 2013, 10:43:36 AM
Since CW3 is pretty much on the brink of release, I have to ask how close this thread and all other pre-release topics and threads are to being locked?

Not even close.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Ronini on April 03, 2013, 12:41:36 PM
Quote from: Grauniad on April 03, 2013, 12:05:23 PM

Quote from: 4xC on April 03, 2013, 10:43:36 AM
Since CW3 is pretty much on the brink of release, I have to ask how close this thread and all other pre-release topics and threads are to being locked?

Not even close.

I have to ask: Will they even be locked after release?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Grauniad on April 03, 2013, 12:53:18 PM
Responding here has devoted more time to that issue than we've collectively spent on considering this issue. There are more important things to do. :)

We'll decide as and when it becomes necessary.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: ShadowDragon7015 on April 09, 2013, 05:24:47 PM
Will you be able to put in custom picture backgrounds from JPEGs?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on April 15, 2013, 08:48:32 AM
I would imagine so. I mean, how could the CW2 pics have had those backgrounds you never see anywhere else?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on April 29, 2013, 06:48:17 PM
Yestserday while watching an old blog video I thought up an idea.
What if there was an option for weapons to fire faster/do more damage or some other perk but consume more energy?
Kind of like the upgrade you can get from the Aether forge but it is an option you can use if you are fighting against a powerful emitter, or fighting with a few blasters across an ocean of creeper and have energy to spare.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: 4xC on April 30, 2013, 08:06:38 AM
In that case, what would be the point of having other weapons/titans in the first place?

We don't need too many options even if, as the latest, the CW3 unit database is the most advanced and diverse CW unit database to date.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Cotters on May 03, 2013, 10:23:27 PM
might already have been brought up, but

a way to skip the tutorial level in both the game, and the demo/flashy-web-thing.
and maybe with a tinny-inconspicuous button: so new players don't notice it but old players that had there play-record deleted could skip over it.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Michionlion on May 04, 2013, 05:43:56 PM
Quote from: Cotters on May 03, 2013, 10:23:27 PM
might already have been brought up, but

a way to skip the tutorial level in both the game, and the demo/flashy-web-thing.
and maybe with a tinny-inconspicuous button: so new players don't notice it but old players that had there play-record deleted could skip over it.

The problem is, the tutorial is build into the story...
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on May 11, 2013, 12:18:52 AM
Quote from: 4xC on April 30, 2013, 08:06:38 AM
In that case, what would be the point of having other weapons/titans in the first place?

We don't need too many options even if, as the latest, the CW3 unit database is the most advanced and diverse CW unit database to date.

Well, titans do a LOT of damage. The bertha, for instance, can be set anywhere on the map and create a huge explosion.
Pulse cannons (this unit in particular is what I was thinking of when I came up with the idea) wipe out creeper in small amounts.
The effect could be like a field, if more pulse cannons are near each other the effect goes up. It would shrink with distance, of course.
Just an idea that would make slog-maps more enjoyable.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: tornado on May 13, 2013, 10:25:27 AM
you could try that with cprl
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: MadMurphy on May 13, 2013, 12:05:15 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned and I did a search and couldn't find any posts in the CW3 section.

A double down mode like in the CW1.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: theogeer on May 13, 2013, 12:32:03 PM
Quote from: MadMurphy on May 13, 2013, 12:05:15 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned and I did a search and couldn't find any posts in the CW3 section.

A double down mode like in the CW1.

Second that. Playing through double-down was a lot of fun for me.

Maybe that can be a later addition if it's not already included. Seems like the perfect opportnity for an expansion pack.

seems like we might be able to write a crpl script for it too.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: Kingo on May 14, 2013, 12:25:18 AM
Quote from: tornado on May 13, 2013, 10:25:27 AM
you could try that with cprl

I'm not sure CPRL supports this area, based on what I gathered from the blog posts so far.
So suspenseful!
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on May 14, 2013, 10:10:10 AM
Quote from: theogeer on May 13, 2013, 12:32:03 PM
Quote from: MadMurphy on May 13, 2013, 12:05:15 PM
Not sure if this was mentioned and I did a search and couldn't find any posts in the CW3 section.

A double down mode like in the CW1.

Second that. Playing through double-down was a lot of fun for me.

Maybe that can be a later addition if it's not already included. Seems like the perfect opportnity for an expansion pack.

seems like we might be able to write a crpl script for it too.
You can't use CRPL to manipulate missions. However you can make something that triggers double down in a custom map.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: billybob on May 14, 2013, 03:27:33 PM
Why can't you re-create the story map and just change the strength of the emitters and post it as "(place map name here) double down"?
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: MadMurphy on May 14, 2013, 04:07:43 PM
As long as people are thinking about it, I am happy.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: MadMurphy on May 15, 2013, 10:48:33 PM
Would also be nice if some of the community members made the CW1 maps for CW3 so we can use the new units on them.

Or could just have these maps unlocked when you complete the campaign as a little bonus.
Title: Re: CW3 Suggestions Redux
Post by: J on May 16, 2013, 02:24:48 AM
Quote from: MadMurphy on May 15, 2013, 10:48:33 PM
Would also be nice if some of the community members made the CW1 maps for CW3 so we can use the new units on them.

Or could just have these maps unlocked when you complete the campaign as a little bonus.
Map size is different in CW3. A normal CW map will be tiny in CW3. In CW3 units take more space and terrain edges are rounded. You probably want to remake them 1.5 times bigger or not at all, as all balancing has to be redone too. However a map like Expert Round might fit directly in CW3.