So I've been thinking about the potential of an upgrade system and decided to submit a few ideas.
The Talent SystemSpoiler
Yes the classic talent system with a tech tree and multiple routes. You could acquire talent points from completing maps or reaching critical points in these maps. This could help with the idea of the world map and If you're stuck on a map you can go to another grab a talent spend it on the 5% fire rate upgrade which is just the little boost you need to break through. This could also work with reaching a point on the map getting a talent going to a new map, getting a talent from there, and using both to help you. This could be one Central tree or it could be three sections. The three sections I would consider would be Energy, Weaponry, and Orbital. This upgrade system would only really work for Campaign and I think it'd fit in nicely.
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/1707/391027-iksar_skill_tree.jpg (http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/1707/391027-iksar_skill_tree.jpg)
Champions of Norrath Talent System ^
The Tehcnyte StationSpoiler
This one is fairly simple in the sense that it's open to many variations. This station would require a lot of space and energy to make. One variation is having it automatically produce technytes for research while another way to put it would be small technyte outposts you can claim and they would give you a few technytes (or they could produce technytes themselves) ANother variation of this concept is having the Technyte station gain technytes over destroying a creeper spawner or weapon. This could be a one time thing or you could turn the power field into a Technyte generator. The Technyte station could also 'eat' the power field removing it from the map but giving you a large amount of technytes.
What do you guys think?
I have to say, I'm intrigued by an upgrade system that spans over several maps, but you've already pointed out it's major flaw, i.e. being only possible in the (or a, user-created campaigns might use it,too) campaign.
Personally, I'd go for a compromise, with some upgrades (type A) you collect for all maps (i.e. a campaign) and some upgrades (type B) you have to unlock for each individual map.
For custom maps, the creator could decide which type upgrades are available, if there is going to be something similar to code missions, these could come with a certain set/all type A upgrades unlocked, depending on the complexity level.
Type A upgrades could involve such features as the longer connection range for relays and collectors, or the auto-repeat feature for air units and of course new units in general.
Type B upgrades would work through something rather similar to CW2's technyte system. I wouldn't go for anything fancy. If it's not broken, don't fix it.
EDIT: Regarding Orbitals: What do you think of unused CN's providing certain benefits, while they remain in orbit?
Quote from: Ronini on November 23, 2012, 08:45:03 AM
...user-created campaigns...
This idea in itself is already awesome! I presume it'll be hard to implement though.
I assume some upgrades - such as having access to construct a unit - will be gamewide from the start, rather than something you regain on every map.
Quote from: Lord_Farin on November 23, 2012, 09:15:24 AM
Quote from: Ronini on November 23, 2012, 08:45:03 AM
...user-created campaigns...
This idea in itself is already awesome! I presume it'll be hard to implement though.
Why should it? There are user created campaigns for 1 and 2 out there, as far as I know. And with the galaxy map there will be a tool that can easily group certain maps in different sectors (i.e. different galaxy maps). I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to offer whole custom sectors for download.
Quote from: Ronini on November 23, 2012, 10:24:09 AM
Why should it? There are user created campaigns for 1 and 2 out there, as far as I know. And with the galaxy map there will be a tool that can easily group certain maps in different sectors (i.e. different galaxy maps). I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to offer whole custom sectors for download.
In my mind, the idea progressed already to a nonlinear system, where completing maps in one direction gives access to certain units or other stuff, which could then be used in other maps. Such high-level campaign planning requires a very advanced editor to set up properly. I agree that there are thematic series for CW1 and CW2, but I was thinking on taking it to the next level.
One campaign map must be inaccessible before another campaign map can be played. Even if that is not the case, that's not a difficult logic to express in a special-case basis, that a player be directed to map Y after completing map X.
Quote from: lurkily on November 23, 2012, 02:02:11 PM
One campaign map must be inaccessible before another campaign map can be played. Even if that is not the case, that's not a difficult logic to express in a special-case basis, that a player be directed to map Y after completing map X.
What? I'm sorry I didn't understand that.
I never mean't to pull players away form doing a map I just said what if they want to get a talent because they were struggling in a map or were frustrated with the lack of progress. The game should still be beatable without talents if you want I just felt this would assist casual players and provide interesting dynamics for story mission speed runs (what's the best talent choice for this mission?)
Also once you finish all the missions you should be able to change your talents anyway you want.
Quote from: lurkily on November 23, 2012, 02:02:11 PM
One campaign map must be inaccessible before another campaign map can be played. Even if that is not the case, that's not a difficult logic to express in a special-case basis, that a player be directed to map Y after completing map X.
This is not relevant to my idea, since I actually wanted to drop the condition that there is a unique order for the maps to be played. In my idea, player can choose between several missions to continue. The problem I think will be hard to solve is how to ensure that the achievements obtained in one direction carry over to the other. The suggestion by lurkily to use talent points could be a viable solution to this.
It would however be awesome if advanced logic and conditional programming would be integrated into the editor, as well as the opportunity to create "alternate universes" (in a way reminiscent of the user packs in the ancient puzzle/action game Supaplex).
"Carrying over" achievements from one map to another is an idea V mentioned in the video about the galaxy map. Actually I had the impression it was more than just an idea, but one of the major purposes of the galaxy concept. Its not a guarantee, but I doubt there will be a problem, then.
I don't know how hard it is to device an algorithm that arranges missions more or less randomly in a sector map. But impossible it certainly ain't.
On the other hand, this algorithm is not necessarily required to be included in the editor. Yes, it would force map creators to place missions by hand and also create connections manually. But, realistically speaking, how many missions would it take to make it an undoable task, and, in comparison, how many missions can one user create?
At the very least, the manual placement should be available, too.
You would be surprised how devoted creeper world members are. Just look at how craZy some of these maps and seriei (plural of series?) give these people the opertuinity to create and they will. We just have to hope Virgil can make it happen ;)
Series is a plural noun, so "series" would have been fine in that sentence.
I like the idea of having technyte generators in a map either require placement on a power site (they flat-out don't work otherwise), or the consumption of a power site in exchange for a set amount of technytes for that mission. If you're really stripped for power, you might choose to keep a generator on the site rather than destroying it for technytes.
idea, command nodes produce tech, but only on power zones, theres a good reason to place one there
Quote from: Ronini on November 23, 2012, 05:21:29 PM
"Carrying over" achievements from one map to another is an idea V mentioned in the video about the galaxy map. Actually I had the impression it was more than just an idea, but one of the major purposes of the galaxy concept. Its not a guarantee, but I doubt there will be a problem, then.
I don't know how hard it is to device an algorithm that arranges missions more or less randomly in a sector map. But impossible it certainly ain't.
Trivial, I would think. Select random procedural world, replace it with mission 1. Lather, rinse, repeat.
QuoteIn the other hand, this algorithm is not necessarily required to be included in the editor. Yes, it would force map creators to place missions by hand and also create connections manually.
I would not want custom maps scattered randomly. (Unless, as a player, I chose to see them distributed randomly in my universe.) A player must be able to find particular maps. They must be able to find those maps based on criteria of their choosing. (Author, date, ratings, etc.) If your access to those maps were going to be through the galaxy map, the path you take to them must be precisely ordered.
I don't think it would require a mapmaker to sort their own maps, though. I would rather see the generator 'invent' the sector containing maps according to his criteria. (The "Sort by date" sector, for instance.) I DO think that defeating some maps should lead to or unlock other maps. I don't think this is too much to ask - simply have the capacity to look your maps up online, and determine which map(s) is a (are) prerequisite(s) for this map.
Quote from: lurkily on November 23, 2012, 10:34:03 PM
I don't think it would require a mapmaker to sort their own maps, though. I would rather see the generator 'invent' the sector containing maps according to his criteria. (The "Sort by date" sector, for instance.) I DO think that defeating some maps should lead to or unlock other maps. I don't think this is too much to ask - simply have the capacity to look your maps up online, and determine which map(s) is a (are) prerequisite(s) for this map.
I'm having a feeling that we are talking about different things. Your point of view seems to be that there is a galaxy where all custom maps appear; on the other hand, I (and I think ronini) envisage separate crafted galaxies (in the spirit of series like that of ETF) that can be played just like a custom map can be now - only there will be a bunch of them bundled.
In the 'overall custom maps galaxy', I do think that a galaxy selection method would be a nice addition, provided it has the features you describe.
If a map and it's prerequisites, and those that have it as a prerequisite, are all linked online, then having these crarfted campaigns doesn't require a crafted galaxy. A Galaxy can be built my the mapper without manually placing worlds and connections. The mapped creates a campaign of ten maps. It might be as easy as specifying a campaign name and prerequisites. For instance, All the game needs to know is these ten maps are in a campaign called Disneyland, and the order they proceed in.
The game knows how to generate a galaxy - there's no need to put that burden on a mapper. I would like the mapper to have that capability, but if it's a skill they MUST have to map, we may end up with fewer mappers instead.
I really like the Idea of every map creator to have it's own galaxy almost as a map hub for their maps and to create campaigns easier but it MUST be easy to understand and work worth otherwise you could really scare away people or end up with a tangled mess of a galaxy.
I don't think the map editor should even be required to make it. Their galaxy should be made automatically, in an ordered manner so that players can find maps they want by any criteria.
Beyond that, if they want to provide an additional environment ordered by their own criteria, that's fine. But the player should be able to enter a "maps created by" sector without any work on the mapper's part - just like they can enter a "maps sorted by most recent" sector.
On the blog posts Lurkily said the upgrade/research system could do with "ongoing costs".
Do you have an idea how to achieve that, yet?
Quote from: Ronini on November 29, 2012, 05:29:33 PM
On the blog posts Lurkily said the upgrade/research system could do with "ongoing costs".
Do you have an idea how to achieve that, yet?
Well, if this were CW2, I would say increase tech dome technyte output, and have each upgrade consume technites according to a rate, instead of out of a single purchase.
I'd want to see the beginning of how CW3's tech tree, if any, develops in the blog before suggesting anything specific for game 3.
Nice. So simple. I like that.
The consequences of supply failure are another issue. You can't just have everything fail. Your energy drops, so your technyte output drops, so your energy efficiency upgrades drop. That's not good.
But that's something I'll wait to talk about until we see more from what V has planned for tech in CW3.