I've flooded the first 2 emitters with AC and they don't flip and the blocker only blocks emitters, but not the portals.. is this broken?
EDIT: Ok, reloading one save and now I could flip emitters and block portals.. weird..
Quote from: renelm on December 25, 2020, 01:53:22 PM
I've flooded the first 2 emitters with AC and they don't flip and the blocker only blocks emitters, but not the portals.. is this broken?
EDIT: Ok, reloading one save and now I could flip emitters and block portals.. weird..
Aw wow, that's rough and completely bit the way it's supposed to work, I'm glad you got it working though!
wouldn't a game like this benefit from the absence of the nullifier? Or at least the nullifier as a pick up somewhere?
anyway, I liked this map. Nice touch that
Spoiler
one can't kill the spore emitter
or is that just something that went wrong with my game?
Quote from: Martin Gronsdal on December 27, 2020, 08:36:41 AM
wouldn't a game like this benefit from the absence of the nullifier? Or at least the nullifier as a pick up somewhere?
Yeah, that's a constant question for me as a map maker, and probably one that would benefit from a general philosophical examination: How much of the features and attributes can I change before the user becomes dissatisfied/bored/bothered? I know that some of my first maps were very controlled: The player only gets so many CN, only gets a few reactors, has to fight through half the map before they get their first relay. And I wanted to control it even further: How much creeper, how could you use the terp, how the story progressed, I wanted it to be such a narrow road to victory.
And as I considered (and as I cross-referenced to my experiences with DnD, Minecraft, WOW, Super Mario, and child rearing) I've come to a conclusion that the player wants to have a predictable experience with a consistent tool selection, and they want a story that they can predict and still affect.
This, in turn, affects the tools that I provide and the assumptions that I expect: Since this is a #floodfill map, I've subverted the idea that CW3 players approach with that nullifiers are used. Should I remove the tool from their toolbox, since it's useless? Should I just leave it available but unused? I know that when I'm playing a map that has a tool removed I spend an inordinate amount of time (like, fifteen seconds!) just wondering what I don't have accessible to me. And then the slow burn: The rest of the map is spent wondering how having that tool available might have changed my playstyle. Even if the answer is "none", I'm wondering, and that--in turn--is a drain on my concentration.
Sometimes (Looking at you, CSM) we've come up with a completely different language: We know what tools we expect: None of the "Weapons" menu, and really only a couple items from the menu at all. It's a completely different game that almost accidently uses the same general interface. Same with PAC, only that explicitly breaks the interface and rebuilds it in a fundamental but still predictable way.
But CSM and PAC have both built their modes over endless iterations and have a certain legitimacy derived from long use. I'm still having to fight for that legitimacy, I'm still having to build consistency into the tools and interface. You remember the first CSM maps? They were... uh... awkward. Strange. Go back and play them (Map number 5229 is the first one, I think. The mode was called "CWDig" before it was called "CSM".) Even Cornucanis is almost apologizing in his first post that he removed so many weapons.
Fortunately, Yum took CSM under his wing. Yum has (to quote the original post) a "hand for making challenging-but-possible maps". And we trust that hand. It's a hand that has given so much legitimacy to so many modes and maps. Again, Yum has earned that reputation through "endless iterations" and "long use".
But nathanaelps? I don't have either. I'm a new maker, and new to the community. And #floodfill is also new. I'm uncertain and doing my best to give my players a predictable experience. Should I? Probably not. I should probably just step in with the expectations that I want for this map. But then I'll be losing the chance for you (the player) to completely blow me away with a new technique that I'd not anticipated, and a chance to make #floodfill into an even more robust and enjoyable game experience in it's own right.
Or maybe not? See, that's where the philosophical questions become really irritating. Neither answer is inherently right, neither is wrong. They're both good answers, just different answers.
And I'm bad at taking tests.
Quote from: nathanaelps on December 29, 2020, 10:20:54 AM
[..]
This, in turn, affects the tools that I provide and the assumptions that I expect: Since this is a #floodfill map, I've subverted the idea that CW3 players approach with that nullifiers are used. Should I remove the tool from their toolbox, since it's useless? Should I just leave it available but unused? [...]
I found that nullifiing most emitters is way faster then terping around and moving the blocker. Kust put 1-2 sprayers or fly over the map with a bomber in the end... at least faster in real time.
which is btw. kinda bothering me. because it's somewhat implicated that switching them is the way to go, but then getting 4 ac depth is kinda difficult (and intro text could mention that requirement imo). Have you considered changing terrain hight? or ac/c flow? or make emmiters switch on nullifiying them?
I could also imagine having unlockable blockers as an interesting gameplay part of this. (or AC pools to set free) Because right now, it plays relativly similar to normal cw in my opinion.