I was wondering, considering in game two, the "Nexus" that you face is being built, but I was wondering if the Creeper could re-build Emitters, Nests, Spore Towers, ext. in game three. Doing so would add another reason to keep creeper away from those locations, but also have it were Pulse Cannons and your other weapons can damage emitters that are not completely re built, but only by .1 health per blast or pulse, whatever you'd call it. Doing so would also make the game semi-easier in levels that emitters need more than one Nullifier to nullify. Just a suggestion, don't know if it is of any use to you or not. If you want to take only portions of this idea, go ahead, I don't mind it being a bit different. Like I said, just a suggestion.
Rushed
Try using this thread http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=11850.0 (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=11850.0) instead of creating a new one ;)
This was suggested before in the Suggestion Initiative , a sort of last-minute protocol to make the creeper just a little bit more persistent. However then the problem of grinding comes up D:
Before this thread possibly gets locked up due to the fact that this topic fits into a pre-existing thread, I have to ask:
What do you mean by grinding?
Grind refers to an RPG concept, where you fight without making progress to grow stronger for current or future areas.
In this particular case, it refers to the need in CW to fight and fight, often for a long time, long after the only possible way to lose is to commit multiple grievous errors over and over again, a failing of CW2 in particular, due to large maps.
CW3, also having large maps, may possibly face this same problem, which is something we do need to keep in mind while making suggestions.
PS: It's more likely the threads will be merged, than that a thread get locked up just for having a duplicate.
Some people enjoy grinding. I enjoy grinding BAMs in Tera, and occasionally I like to take my time and grind a nice CW map. I believe that it is up to personal preference and the option might be nice.....
Quote from: TrickyDragon on November 19, 2012, 09:42:05 AMSome people enjoy grinding. I enjoy grinding BAMs in Tera, and occasionally I like to take my time and grind a nice CW map. I believe that it is up to personal preference and the option might be nice.....
Some people may like it, but many players, upon knowing for a certainty that they are going to win and a loss is impossible, will quit the map, taking their win as a given, rather than grind it to completion.
I don't mind some maps being designed to provide a grind, but I don't think it should be a typical and ever-present feature of the game.
Not familiar with Tera, so I can't comment on that. EDIT: But I suspect you're referring to grinding to build up resources, which isn't the case in CW - the grind provides no real benefit here.
Quote from: lurkily on November 19, 2012, 10:39:06 AM
Some people may like it, but many players, upon knowing for a certainty that they are going to win and a loss is impossible, will quit the map, taking their win as a given, rather than grind it to completion.
http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=11314.msg76395#msg76395
I have also heard grinding referred to as "turtling." In fact, that was the first reference to that style of play I encountered.
Tera is a live action mmorpg (aim and dodge kind of action).
I understand not wanting the prospect of grinding looking over you when you play, I more often thant not go after a swift kill and take out a map ASAP.
I do believe that the endgame needs some kind of spice to it.....
Turtling is an old title given to styles of RTS play - Turtle, eagle, rusher, etc. The turtle is the one that focuses on impenetrability and fortresses. Turtles tend to grind as well, because they don't have the aggression to finish a level quickly - they're too tied up in making sure nothing can break through to take the risks needed for a quick kill.
Grinding can happen on CW2 regardless of your play style, of the map design requires it.
I actually hope that grinding and turtling is less possible in CW3 than it was in most other RTS games I have ever played. But not too much less possible.
Turtling can be fun - grinding not so much, in my opinion.
The advent of several titans should make the slog through nasty creeper less severe for a turtle player, by giving that type of fortress-builder a heavy armory for clearing out the map with.
Grinding isn't the word I'd use for maps that have you going through a long, slow, tedious struggle to advance, but with no real threat of losing. It's more of a slog, like a trek through thick and deep mud.....
Quote from: 4xC on November 19, 2012, 07:24:54 PM
I actually hope that grinding and turtling is less possible in CW3 than it was in most other RTS games I have ever played. But not too much less possible.
Do you have any suggestions how to make turtling less
possible?
As I don't see how you'd do it.
Then again, it doesn't really matter. If a player wants to turtle they can turtle. If you don't want to then don't. If the map seems to demand turtling, see it as an extra challenge to find a way where you don't.
I have an idea. It might not stop "turtling" but it would give a reason not to stay too long in each world.
The idea is simply that the creeper attacks your "secure" worlds. Those worlds that you secured but still has a path to an "in progress" world or just one still having creeper on it. The premis is that creeper is an aggressive thing trying to destroy you and not just on the battle field but from the whole galaxy. So every so many hours of total gameplay the player takes one of their "secure" worlds turns into an "in progress" world, and every "in progress" world that is in front of it with no other "secure" worlds connected to it would then be destroyed making the player have to start from scratch.
When a world is "attacked" by the creeper it simply puts emitters or what ever was on the power nodes back in place. and with more time that passes more nodes are retaken by the creeper. (so at first its just one or two nodes retaken but after each attack more nodes are retaken) That way if someone "turtles" and takes hours of gameplay for each world they could wind up having to go though an entire world again with a slightly higher creeper level each time.
this adds 3 ideas to gameplay
1 you can loss. if you just sit back and think about your move a lot you will keep getting attacked by more and more creeper meaning you should pay attention to whats going on.
2 those who are fast wont have to worry about having to fight the same worlds over and over. this would reward those who are fast with not getting attacked as often or with as much creeper.
3 if you do "turtle" build up your base and put down a lot of defenses the game will progressively get more and more challenging for you. that way you can test your defenses on a more powerful creeper forces.
One problem with this is completionism. A lot of players will want to finish every world. (Crazy folk.) The more they advance towards that goal, though, the more worlds they will have exposed. Progress would slow your progress.
Another problem is . . . how to simulate the passage of time? You could just reset the world.
I don't really like how it applies pressure to move fast, when a good percentage of the market seems to be somewhat OCD.
Quote from: Tpop on November 29, 2012, 04:51:52 PM
I have an idea. It might not stop "turtling" but it would give a reason not to stay too long in each world.
...
Hi Tpop. There is somewhat of an interesting idea contained in you outline. As lurkily pointed out, it cannot be applied system-wide, because the burden would get too onerous for the player. However, some form of it may well make for an interesting challenge.
Don't hold your breath. Ideas like this may take some time to germinate and come to implementation. By that time you may not even recognize it. :)
I fully understand. Personaly i like to turtle, and the idea would probably work best as more of a challenge after the game has been compleated. (kind of like the dubbledown system in CW1) the player could turn it on or off at there descresion. but yes it would take a lot of programing and time to put into effect. I just thow it out becouse i couldn't think of anyother way to discurage "turtleing" other then retreaving servivle pods like in the other games. :D
It doesn't necessarily need lots of coding or lots of complexity. It just need lots of thought into how it can be achieved simply.
Real genius is seen in solutions that are simple and effective. Those solutions are out there, but you have to work to reach them.
a way to make it easy would be to get one of those "in game timers" that starts when you get in the campain and pauses when you leave (that way it can resume when you come back) instead of haveing just any planet attack your planets you make attack planets that would launch a creeper attack force toward you. the force would travel from planet to planet (like your ship would) to the nearest cleared plenet to it. you could put multiple "attack" planets in various places and alternate which planet attacks. that way it has a higher chance of being a different planet each time and if you take out the attack planets you wont be attacked anymore. the idea of "attack" planets could give you mini boss gameplay with you trying to kill the launch pad, or a more challenging world with highly aggresive creeper so the challenge/reward would be intact.
personaly, i would make it like the dubbledown in CW1 where after the player compleat the campain they can chose it up the challenge of gameplay. that would let new players get used to the game while veterans can push themselves. too add to it i would say the player themselves can chose the time between attacks (the range from 1 hour to 5 or 6 in hour intervolse) while at the same time haveing them chose the number of attack planets (1-6)
if this idea is used or not CW3 looks like an amazing game, and though i cant wait to play it i still say take your time so you can put all your ideas in it and make it better. :)
I would rather do something more like 2-4 mission intervals than X hour intervals. I don't really like the idea of putting time-pressure on a market that seems largely to have a degree of OCD.
EDIT: Maybe add up a time amount - if the total mission time is > 1hr, and at least one other mission was completed since the last creeper attack, then generate an attack on one of your worlds.
This means a maximum attack of 1 every two missions, attacks which, if you respond immediately, you might be able to defeat more easily . . . and if you complete missions quickly, less often than that.
I kind of like Tpop's idea, if the creeper attack force moves one planet for every planet you clear you'd only have 1 attack per 2 worlds if you're right next to an attack world otherwise it would be longer. It also has the same feeling as the micro levels of the maps themselves. Trying to take out the source while getting through the constant attack.
Quote from: inspiratieloos on December 12, 2012, 07:53:22 AM
I kind of like Tpop's idea, if the creeper attack force moves one planet for every planet you clear you'd only have 1 attack per 2 worlds if you're right next to an attack world otherwise it would be longer.
Wait . . . what? If you had 1 creeper attack per every 2 missions fought (two steps forward, one step back) why would your proximity to the attack have anything to do with anything?
My main problem with the idea is that it rewards speed play, and punishes people who take a long time with missions. While a player clears one difficult mission, there's every chance that they could lose a world in exchange, totally negating their advance - or even two worlds, which would make real advancement practically impossible for methodical or OCD players.
I think the main portion of CW's player base is far too casual to respond to being punished if they don't play like it's a hardcore time-trial.
1 attack per 2 missions would be the maximum if you had a planet right next to a creeper attack base (thus no risk of losing ground if you take long in maps), taking that one planet would mean the attacks slow down again because the creeper starts using the next closest base.
Basically the creeper always moves slower than the player so unless you actually lose a lot of maps you will still gain ground. Also if you do lose ground creeper attacks get slower, while if you get closer to the source of the attacks the resistance becomes heavier.
Creeper attacks moving along the 'network' planet by planet means that you can attempt to extrapolate where the creeper is coming from based on where you are attacked and how often and then actively hunt down the source of the attack force.
Being able to replay maps, if I wish to, is great. Forcing players to replay maps is a bad idea in general.
I was under the impression that defending a map would be a different level than taking it. if it's not, then yeah, creeper attacks are a bad idea.
The attack is being executed on a location that you'd completed. I'm not sure how you would prevent the player from replaying the same map without removing it from the sector and replacing it.
Quote from: inspiratieloos on December 13, 2012, 09:19:53 AM
while if you get closer to the source of the attacks the resistance becomes heavier.
Sounds like the comets the closer you get to Bowser in the Super Mario Galaxy games.
Quote from: lurkily on December 14, 2012, 08:08:37 AM
The attack is being executed on a location that you'd completed. I'm not sure how you would prevent the player from replaying the same map without removing it from the sector and replacing it.
Well, if you play a map normally you enter by dropping CN's from orbit onto an empty planet while the creeper responds from established positions.
I'd assume that if the creeper attacks you'd already have assets on the ground while the creeper doesn't start with a fixed position.
The map would be the same, but the mechanics wouldn't.
Starting out with assets might be too easy - really, the reason creeper poses a difficulty if because you don't have the infrastructure to establish a balance, at first.
The rest? I'd really have to play it before I could tell if moving the start point of the emitters and spore towers, etc would be worth another game. Much of the tactical situation is dictated by terrain.
Which is where the terps come in supposedly, except that they take a fair deal of time to go to work for units that BUY time frankly.
So basically, you're saying it's the player's job to make an old map fun again by playing the role of mappers with a terp? I'm not sure that's something most players would consider fun - else we'd have a much larger mapper community, no?
I think most players using terps only use them as far as they help keep creeper out of their base.
Quote from: inspiratieloos on December 15, 2012, 01:20:08 PM
Quote from: lurkily on December 14, 2012, 08:08:37 AM
The attack is being executed on a location that you'd completed. I'm not sure how you would prevent the player from replaying the same map without removing it from the sector and replacing it.
Well, if you play a map normally you enter by dropping CN's from orbit onto an empty planet while the creeper responds from established positions.
I'd assume that if the creeper attacks you'd already have assets on the ground while the creeper doesn't start with a fixed position.
The map would be the same, but the mechanics wouldn't.
That actually could work. I wouldn't like it, but that's a different story.
You'd need the emitters to errupt one massive wave of creeper in the beginning, though. So they overcome possible PCs capping them off right away. This again could make a map impossible to win if it's your sole CN that is covered by creeper in this way. It might be not impossible to balance this feature, but I consider it to be to hard to balance to be worth it.
I don't understand why you can't start with units placed down. I think if creeper has already been generated in the map before you join then I think that isn't a problem. Basically you'd start out with limited space and you're base could already be surronded by creeper but you already have some generated power and weapons to defend yourself. It's similar to some CW maps I've played where their is units that are already on the map and some are really close to the CNs. Why not create pools of Creeper like in CW2 at the beginning of maps too?
EDIT: Sorry my bad, I thought we were discussing custom maps in general, not still debating about the multiple missions per map defense idea.
Too easy to 'secure' a map my spreading PC's and mortars all over the place before you leave. Because fortifying a planet before leaving would make repelling an attack simple, it would encourage players to play after completion. That might be boring to some people.
Quote from: lurkily on December 16, 2012, 11:21:26 AM
Too easy to 'secure' a map my spreading PC's and mortars all over the place before you leave.
Not if the creeper comes in one gigantic wave in the beginning.
Chawe800's idea of pre-inserting the creeper before the player enters the map might be another solution. But how this should be done code-wise I have know idea.
Another thought: Since we have a limited supply of CN's (up to just three at any given time), the logical consequence is that all CN's are retrieved from a planets surface after a map is finished. That would make it possible to really swipe a completed map of all structures, place new emitters (in new positions) and then let the player redo the map. I'm not saying I'd like it, but it's a way this could work.
I do hope the limited CN feature will also take effect when starting multiple maps at once. Otherwise: why limit the useable number of CN's to three, if more are available?
Quote from: Ronini on December 16, 2012, 02:10:52 PM
Quote from: lurkily on December 16, 2012, 11:21:26 AM
Too easy to 'secure' a map my spreading PC's and mortars all over the place before you leave.
Not if the creeper comes in one gigantic wave in the beginning.
Doesn't matter. If I have PC's and mortars all over the place, it will thin out the spreading wave fast and early. Mortars will core the center of the creeper mass immediately, limiting spread pressure. Many PC's/mortars will be lost, but only because nodes or relays, which can't survive even a moment of exposure, will be lost. Once the initial spread is contained, you will only be left with the emitters, totally surrounded by a densely constructed network, with a very powerful infrastructure already pre-built.
Even if the emitters did blow a massive hole in your network structure with pre-emitted creeper at high pressure, the pre-built infrastructure alone would make the map a cakewalk, if you distributed it intelligently.
QuoteAnother thought: Since we have a limited supply of CN's (up to just three at any given time), the logical consequence is that all CN's are retrieved from a planets surface after a map is finished. That would make it possible to really swipe a completed map of all structures, place new emitters (in new positions) and then let the player redo the map.
Not convinced that a new emitter placement is enough to make a map fresh and fun. Too much of the players tactics are dictated by the terrain.
QuoteI do hope the limited CN feature will also take effect when starting multiple maps at once. Otherwise: why limit the useable number of CN's to three, if more are available?
Multiple maps at once? What?
EDIT: Limitations like that are easy to explain if you want a lore reason for it. The one that comes most obviously to me is that the computer systems on the ship can't effectively administer more than three CN's at once. I'm sure you can come up with a different reason on your own, if you try.
The point of this is that gameplay is what's important. If a reason really does need to be given, they're easy to make up. Just blame it on the midichlorians.
Once again, you're right. With multiple maps I was referring to the ability to stop playing a map, freezing it in time, complete a different map to collect a new tech, return to the first map and continue where you left off. I just thought treating CN's as a very limited ressource and having to manage them would give the game a strategic level. I know I said I hoped for this earlier. But having thought about it a bit more I realised it would probably be too limiting.