This topic is for discussion of map: the valley of doom (http://knucklecracker.com/creeperworld/mapcomments.php?id=47)
(http://knucklecracker.com/creeperworld/thumb.php?id=47) (http://knucklecracker.com/creeperworld/mapcomments.php?id=47)
Author: jono (http://knucklecracker.com/creeperworld/viewmaps.php?author=jono)
Desc:
doom, doom and more doom
As someone remarked, I *must* be a masochist, 'cuz this one is a flying map.
Things have moved on to where the best times can mostly be achieved by flying units, which I think was really not the original intent of the game.
Quote from: Karsten75 on June 02, 2010, 08:28:55 PM
As someone remarked, I *must* be a masochist, 'cuz this one is a flying map.
;)
Quote from: Karsten75 on June 02, 2010, 08:28:55 PM
Things have moved on to where the best times can mostly be achieved by flying units
This only works for very few maps: maps that intentionally require flying, or even bridging and maps that have been designed badly.
Quote from: Karsten75 on June 02, 2010, 08:28:55 PM
which I think was really not the original intent of the game.
Virgil actually
did intend this, read
here (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=90.msg3379#msg3379).
Quote from: UpperKEES on June 02, 2010, 08:38:18 PM
Quote from: Karsten75 on June 02, 2010, 08:28:55 PM
which I think was really not the original intent of the game.
Virgil actually did intend this, read here (http://knucklecracker.com/forums/index.php?topic=90.msg3379#msg3379).
I said it badly. I intended to say that Virgil probably never intended for maps to be created where OC or a unit has to be in the air to effect and maintain a connection. I have no problem with one (or even multiple) relocations of OC. I have a problem with "bridging."
I don't like it either and I think you're right that Virgil probably didn't intend this.
However any map maker nowadays should know this technique exists and prevent it from being used (unless intended).
I didn't use it for this map by the way. You have to wait until a free space becomes available for a collector to connect to the totems and bridging doesn't solve that here. Once the walls have decayed you move in with full force and that's it.
I still used OC to fly over and connect a totem. My timing was a little off - I placed a flying blaster incorrectly and I had so many blasters in the air I could not figure out which one it was. Without that, I might have sneaked in ahead of you! :)
When I planned my approach for this one I also figured I should charge one totem with OC, but when I came to that point I had so many speed nodes that building a collector was just as fast. You have to wait for the collector of the second totem anyway, so it didn't turn out to be a speed gain.
Quote from: UpperKEES on June 03, 2010, 01:32:43 PM
When I planned my approach for this one I also figured I should charge one totem with OC, but when I came to that point I had so many speed nodes that building a collector was just as fast. You have to wait for the collector of the second totem anyway, so it didn't turn out to be a speed gain.
You think? ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyPcegO2mxQ
Heheh! Nice score (and well timed)!
But as you've noticed it's only a difference of 8 seconds, so I wouldn't say this map requires flying.
By the way, any idea why the walls don't decay symmetrically while that part of the map seems to be? (That's why you have your slight advantage.)
Quote from: UpperKEES on June 03, 2010, 02:14:06 PM
By the way, any idea why the walls don't decay symmetrically while that part of the map seems to be? (That's why you have your slight advantage.)
No, I don't. But now this totally does not make sense. Look at this screenshot. At 6:17 the wall has not decayed enough to place a connector near the top totem. What explanation can there possibly be that you have been able to connect to it by 5:26? The rate of decay on your system seems to be bigger than the rate of decay on mine??
(http://i49.tinypic.com/2ezqx5z.jpg)
From time to time something happens that awakens again in me the nagging doubt that there are timing issues in this game and that those explain why some people get scores that are not repeatable by others.
Indeed interesting. A difference between our approaches is however that I never went up to the emitters until there was space available. I remember (don't forget it was months ago) that there was a slight difference in time when those spots became available (and I had OC waiting near the bottom one, that's also why I aborted my flying strategy).
But on the same machine you would expect the decaying to be equally fast near the two totems when exactly symmetrical, right? Are all emitters the same strength? (This is one of the maps with an altered name on my machine due to importing, so I can't load it easily into the map editor.)
Edit: Didn't you tell me last week that you have so many pc's? Why don't you do exactly the same thing on two of them (pick a fast and a slow one)?
Quote from: UpperKEES on June 03, 2010, 03:05:50 PM
Indeed interesting. A difference between our approaches is however that I never went up to the emitters until there was space available. I remember (don't forget it was months ago) that there was a slight difference in time when those spots became available (and I had OC waiting near the bottom one, that's also why I aborted my flying strategy).
But on the same machine you would expect the decaying to be equally fast near the two totems when exactly symmetrical, right? Are all emitters the same strength? (This is one of the maps with an altered name on my machine due to importing, so I can't load it easily into the map editor.)
Edit: Didn't you tell me last week that you have so many pc's? Why don't you do exactly the same thing on two of them (pick a fast and a slow one)?
I have two that I can play CW on. Good idea, I might do that. Both are now Win 7 machines, so if it is an OS issue, it will not be apparent.
As for the uneven decay, I have no idea, I was watching carefully and the creeper seemed to touch both sides about the same time and definitely not with such a long interval as account for an entire layer's decay.
Edit: It might be illuminating if you could post a screenie of the wall having decayed that fast. That would also serve as evidence that we can provide to Virgil that there are timing issues in the game.
I'll try that later on, as I'm currently working on Nice Job 23....
(http://i.imagehost.org/0922/Screen_shot_2010-06-04_at_6_52_45_PM.png)
Screenie with 3 walls decayed so that one can build a collector near the upper totem... Note 7 minutes and the vertical wall is just collapsing.
This on my laptop, with Win 7.
(http://i50.tinypic.com/34ywi36.jpg) (http://i46.tinypic.com/25f59jl.jpg)
And here, with drastic differences, is the results on my desktop:
(http://i46.tinypic.com/348kidt.jpg) (http://i47.tinypic.com/34iqp2w.jpg)
These are weird results, I must say...
It would be nice if other players would test this and post their experiences here.
2nd layer gone in 4:42, same time on mac osx macbook, and desktop running win vista
3rd layer gone at 7:00, same specs
Just checked it myself and got the same results as you all have, so I must have remembered incorrectly. I knew I had to change something, but apparently I just had to switch with OC from bottom right to top left, thus losing 8 seconds.
Quote from: Karsten75 on June 04, 2010, 01:00:49 PM
Screenie with 3 walls decayed so that one can build a collector near the upper totem... Note 7 minutes and the vertical wall is just collapsing.
This on my laptop, with Win 7.
And here, with drastic differences, is the results on my desktop:
I don't get it, what's so drastic? You're comparing two completely different moments. Your results are in line with those of everyone else, so we've just proven that there's no different between different machines.
The only thing that we can't explain is why the walls don't decay symmetrically, but that's the same for every player. Maybe Virgil knows....
Quote from: UpperKEES on June 04, 2010, 04:59:26 PM
I don't get it, what's so drastic? You're comparing two completely different moments. Your results are in line with those of everyone else, so we've just proven that there's no different between different machines.
The only thing that we can't explain is why the walls don't decay symmetrically, but that's the same for every player. Maybe Virgil knows....
*facepalm* thought I had both images decay equal amounts of walls.
/me gets the doofus award
Virgil, I'm sorry! Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Quote from: UpperKEES on June 04, 2010, 04:59:26 PM
The only thing that we can't explain is why the walls don't decay symmetrically, but that's the same for every player. Maybe Virgil knows....
I found the cause of this as well. It's the placement of the totems. Apparently a cell containing a totem doesn't contain creeper, so the top left totem blocks 3 wall elements partially, while the bottom right totem blocks only 2 wall elements.
Totems blocking creeper made me think; should I consider these as crazonium walls?
So I created attached test map. Apparently cells with a totem do contain creeper, but they are not tested for it during the calculation of the wall decay. You can see this clearly when you look at the attached image; the creeper passes through the gaps in the wall, although these gaps contain a totem.
I found something similar during testing yesterday.
Maybe our Mod chani can move some of this discussion to somewhere more pertinent?
Yes, that would be nice. I think it belongs to the Gameplay section and I would call it something like: "Wall decaying influenced by totem placement"