Creeper World 3 Suggestions Initiative

[4xC]

That about jumping to conclusions about liking or disliking suggestions is pretty eye-catching. I had similar feedback when I imaginitively created the Worm. But you know, whatever the feedback, the majority ruling of the community seems to be a main determining factor for what goes and what does not.

[lurkily]

Definitely think we need more consistent ways to deliver AC to the field.  I expect that some things are in development, but having to remember to utilize bombers seems like a pain - it would be like having to remember to tell your PC's  to open fire again.

I respectfully disagree. Blah Blah Blah.

Take Starcraft 2 for example it uses a solid balance of micro and macro and unit strategies.

Starcraft is definitely a franchise that originated with a foundation in the heavy use of micro, though I haven't played Starcraft 2.

For now, I take it the strafers, bombers, and guppies are all on auto-pilot even though they have human's cockpits?

In CW1, all aircraft were drones, and given the unit behavior, I doubt anything has changed.  Putting humans on the battlefield would be a major shift in the tone of the game, and I have my doubts that it would be beneficial.

manually set weapon fire rates might be useful for low energy maps.

Honestly?  I think intelligent use of launchers is a better solution.

odd how so many jump on this suggestion as bad

I simply think that the situations in which it would be useful can be completely avoided by intelligent gameplay.  If the player plays well, they shouldn't need it.  If they do need it, they're already doing something wrong, and there are already ways to limit the damage caused by this situation. (Like move half your blasters back, instead of limiting their fire rate to 50%.) The amount of various settings needed to eliminate the various woes caused by incautious gameplay would bury the more casual players with a morass of weapons options.

EDIT: Excised the bad behavior that I originally posted, both my own and others'.  Sorry.  I'll try to be good.  :)

[4xC]

Indeed. I doubt there would be anything good in bringing humans on the battlefield either, but I came up with that as a compromise for those who want humans on the battlefield; although I prefer it as it is without them on the field.

And yeah, a lot of the problems here are not as much the units as the players. It seems like there is a greater need for effort, out-of-the-box thinking, and trials and errors than some people let on. And moving units around like you suggest, Lurkily, is a good idea, and I add something I repeat: there is the ability to disconnect or disarm half of the weapons than change there whole fire rates, and there's the ability to group them into numbers like in CW2 and the Starcraft series.

And aside of what you said about the bombers, it's also preety painful that on large maps, it would take a WHILE to send in bombers to a distant target. It would be like having to rebuild them as you expand your base across the map. And what to do with the AC stored in the bomber pads if you want to destroy any that you either do not need or want anymore? This would be possible if the nearest enemy creeper was really far from where the B-pads are. I now see issuing multiple bomber attacks as issuing constant CW1 drone attacks.

It's frankly almost too bad that flying unit's pads (at least the bombers') cannot be moved unless they are eventually made to be so. I remeber in the Starcraft series that most of the terran buildings were able to move to other locations to adapt to situations and base relocations better when they needed to expand their resource production for example. And I know that rifts are not something likely to be added to CW3, but I wonder what will be done about rapid energy distribution on large maps.

[Chawe800]

It's frankly almost too bad that flying unit's pads (at least the bombers') cannot be moved unless they are eventually made to be so. I remeber in the Starcraft series that most of the terran buildings were able to move to other locations to adapt to situations and base relocations better when they needed to expand their resource production for example. And I know that rifts are not something likely to be added to CW3, but I wonder what will be done about rapid energy distribution on large maps.

Possibly a great idea would be to to construct almost an airport with a main control base that supplies all the planes parked onto the airway you construct. That idea stinks.

Perhaps the original pad constructed serves as a base of operations for commanding the bombers and strafers. and construct operating pads more towards the front lines where the bomber can land. The AC is supplied directly to the main supply pad and then relayed directly to the resuppliment pad the bomber/strafer is designated to land. Now this would actually be pretty close to some serious micro so maybe the the bombers and strafers would automatically land towards the nearest resuppliment pad.

[Shrike30]

And aside of what you said about the bombers, it's also preety painful that on large maps, it would take a WHILE to send in bombers to a distant target. It would be like having to rebuild them as you expand your base across the map. And what to do with the AC stored in the bomber pads if you want to destroy any that you either do not need or want anymore? This would be possible if the nearest enemy creeper was really far from where the B-pads are. I now see issuing multiple bomber attacks as issuing constant CW1 drone attacks.

It's frankly almost too bad that flying unit's pads (at least the bombers') cannot be moved unless they are eventually made to be so. I remeber in the Starcraft series that most of the terran buildings were able to move to other locations to adapt to situations and base relocations better when they needed to expand their resource production for example. And I know that rifts are not something likely to be added to CW3, but I wonder what will be done about rapid energy distribution on large maps.

If an option to decommission structures was implemented (pulling the anticreeper out of the bombers or energy out of the weapon, and then breaking the structure itself down into packets again) keeping your bombers near the frontlines would require only time, not a constant loss of resources to rolling waves of construction.  Structures could decommission at the same speed they're built and their payloads are transmitted to them, making relocating them something that could happen with no wasted resources, or a penalty (only 75% or 50% recovery, for example) could be applied to decommissioning.

My personal experience with larger CW2 maps was that I really had no problem abandoning/scrapping chunks of my infrastructure as the level wore on.  On maps of the scale we're starting to see in the blog posts, I'm not sure I'd worry that much about the cost of establishing new, more forward aircraft pads in terms of percentage of my overall energy economy.

[4xC]

Possibly a great idea would be to to construct almost an airport with a main control base that supplies all the planes parked onto the airway you construct. That idea stinks.

Are you saying my idea stinks or the idea with the line on it stinks? If you mean mine, that was harsh. It's not uncommon to get negative feedback for new ideas, but to say that so early and so sharply is so offensive, I would be initially suprised to see that reply on the forum for much longer.

And Shrike30, knowing that in CW2, makers with charged AC would let it all loose if it was destroyed before you bursted it, maybe either the pads should let loose all stored AC, or be disconnected and their bombers fly out and let it out 1 last time before the pad was destroyed.

[Grauniad]

What I said in this thread applies here and everywhere else as well.

Consider: "Less is more."

[Cavemaniac]

Definitely think we need more consistent ways to deliver AC to the field.

I'm hanging out to see what Virgil does with Conversion Bomb technology.

Imagine bombers where you can switch the bomb load between Anti Creeper and Conversion Bombs.

If you've got ore, you can make AC - which is great for flooding a forward area to inhibit the Creeper.

If you don't have ore, but you've got spare energy, you can always make you own AC with Conversion Bombs - though the AC generated would probably behave in a very different way to AC dropped on top of creeper...

[Chawe800]

Are you saying my idea stinks or the idea with the line on it stinks? If you mean mine, that was harsh. It's not uncommon to get negative feedback for new ideas, but to say that so early and so sharply is so offensive, I would be initially suprised to see that reply on the forum for much longer.

I never mean't to criticize you or your ideas. I'm just saying the idea with the line through it stinks. I think your idea is great  :)

[Mr.H]

I wonder if it's possible to have creeper and anti-creeper on top of each other in the same cell...

[Nemoricus]

I wonder if it's possible to have creeper and anti-creeper on top of each other in the same cell...

Considering that Creeper and anti-Creeper levels are represented as a range on a single signed integer value, no.

[lurkily]

And aside of what you said about the bombers, it's also preety painful that on large maps, it would take a WHILE to send in bombers to a distant target. It would be like having to rebuild them as you expand your base across the map. And what to do with the AC stored in the bomber pads if you want to destroy any that you either do not need or want anymore? This would be possible if the nearest enemy creeper was really far from where the B-pads are. I now see issuing multiple bomber attacks as issuing constant CW1 drone attacks.

Hum.  I'm not really terribly concerned.  If a bomber base's storage is such an asset that it cannot be wasted, you can use it in one last bombing run.  Disabling will prevent wastage.  If it's not significant enough to warrant such careful control, then the player can deal with the loss of those resources and destroy the pads to make room.

In short, the player can trade the resources invested in pads - both construction costs, and the ammo stored - for another resource, real estate.  Through careful management, he can make this exchange more efficiently, through disabling the pad and using the stored ammo.

[Chawe800]

I'd like to see the bomber drop 3 different kinds of AC bombs. 1. Very similar to strafers it drop a small line of bombs create for creating a large wall of AC to use at a chokehold. 2. Normal bombing methods currently used. 3. Large bomb on specific specified target create for establishing a foothold on a plateau or for establishing great chokepoints.

[4xC]

"Disabling" or as CW2 calls it I believe "disconnecting". I assume by disabling the pad, it no longer gets resupplied? If so, then it goes back to CW2 where you can either deactivate, disarm, or disconnect.

[Shrike30]

"Disabling" or as CW2 calls it I believe "disconnecting". I assume by disabling the pad, it no longer gets resupplied? If so, then it goes back to CW2 where you can either deactivate, disarm, or disconnect.

That seems like it'd accomplish most of what people are trying to get here.  Disconnect the bomber pad so it's not getting resupplied anymore, and then send those bombers out on a last run with that AC.  All that remains "lost" is the initial energy investment of setting up the pad at that point, and if you really want to recoup those losses (the slow way), destroy the pad and build a reactor in it's place.