CW2 - Halfzonium barriers

[Karsten75]

For those of you that don't read the blog, I made a suggestion to Virgil about a new type of barrier (can't call 'em "walls" underground, can we?) that I named "halfzonium" since it has elements of Crazonium walls, but are different.

In CW1 crazonium walls are indestructible. But now that both sides will possess creeper, it may be interesting to create a barrier that can only be destroyed by placing creeper on both sides  (friendly or enemy - the same on both sides) of the barrier and then the barrier can be destroyed.

It means that you can have an obstacle that prevents direct movement in a line, but eventually you can create a path once you control both sides of the barrier. Also, if you fail to secure an area and let a weak creeper in front of a barrier holding back much stronger creeper behind, you could get a catastrophic flood!

[UpperKEES]

Could be interesting. By 'both sides' do you mean at least 6 of the 8 adjacent cells? For walls in a straight horizontal or vertical line this is rather easy to determine, but for any other layout (for instance diagonal or T-crossings) this might be harder.

[knucracker]

In CW2, terrain cells can only be touched by the adjacent 4 neighbors (top,bottom,left,right).  So I could do a "any two" or "any three" or "all four" rule.  Right now the rule is "any one" and the Creeper has to be of the evil variety... when this is true you get terrain decay.

I've actually experimented with all kinds of terrain type.  Believe it or not but one of the major limiting factors is how to clearly indicate to the player what are the properties of any given terrain cell.  Too much variety and it becomes confusing to a player what to expect.

Sticking to my minimalist guns (which totally carried ruled the day in CW1) I've been trying to minimize the terrain types to the "most significant" types that provide predictable behavior without being too confusing.  So for now I have 5 total terrain cell types:
-Easily dug
-Moderate to dig
-Hard to dig
-Can't dig
-Easy to dig and evil creeper will destroy it.

[Karsten75]

In CW2, terrain cells can only be touched by the adjacent 4 neighbors (top,bottom,left,right).  So I could do a "any two" or "any three" or "all four" rule.  Right now the rule is "any one" and the Creeper has to be of the evil variety... when this is true you get terrain decay.

I've actually experimented with all kinds of terrain type.  Believe it or not but one of the major limiting factors is how to clearly indicate to the player what are the properties of any given terrain cell.  Too much variety and it becomes confusing to a player what to expect.

Sticking to my minimalist guns (which totally carried ruled the day in CW1) I've been trying to minimize the terrain types to the "most significant" types that provide predictable behavior without being too confusing.  So for now I have 5 total terrain cell types:
-Easily dug
-Moderate to dig
-Hard to dig
-Can't dig
-Easy to dig and evil creeper will destroy it.

I'm not so sure it makes as much sense given the terrain types you outlined, I was more thinking along a way to overcome a limitation of crazonium walls.

My proposal is along the lines of a modified "can't dig" type. If creeper (either good/evil, but only of one type) touches opposing sides (top/bottom, left/right) then the wall type decays from "can't dig" to "easy to dig and creeper will destroy it" type.  So if the player or the creeper controls both sides of the barrier, then they get to move through the terrain, but until they do, they can't pass through and has to find a way around.  Note that if you "chamber" this terrain type with some other terrain sandwiched in between, then the "touch opposing sides" rule can never come into play and the wall remains impenetrable.

But if you don't have decaying terrain (like normal walls decayed in CW1) then this probably doesn't make much sense. We're still focused on what we know of the game based on what we know about CW1.  

Could be interesting. By 'both sides' do you mean at least 6 of the 8 adjacent cells? For walls in a straight horizontal or vertical line this is rather easy to determine, but for any other layout (for instance diagonal or T-crossings) this might be harder.

I did initially think about this along the 8-sides-model of CW1 walls. And I did mean that it had to be diametrically opposed.  So yes, under certain conditions this could never be satisfied and the wall could not be destroyed.  And there is a complication on what to do for double-or more width walls.

[thepenguin]

this appears kind of easy to add in, but I am not quite sure whether or not it would be interesting

[thepenguin]

or maybe map makers could choose the wall decay type

0-decays over time
1-normal wall
2-halfzonium
etc...