Creeper World 3 Suggestions Initiative

[lurkily]

having the ability to increase the number of available weapons through tech pickups would be cool.
so if you only get "x" blasters to start you could have "parts" for "y" more set as values in the tech items.
also forward energy stores would be cool, so you can set up situation where the player can leave a defence running for a while, whilst the LS runs away to set up elsewhere. also would be good for large maps where events breakup power flows

Somehow, I suspect that hard limits on the total number of a unit type that you can build (even if you can expand that capacity) will be terribly popular.

I made a similar suggestion for limiting the Titan class, but it appears that the community doesn't like the idea of hard limits lie that in the core game, but only as an option to custom mappers.

[teknotiss]

having the ability to increase the number of available weapons through tech pickups would be cool.
so if you only get "x" blasters to start you could have "parts" for "y" more set as values in the tech items.
also forward energy stores would be cool, so you can set up situation where the player can leave a defence running for a while, whilst the LS runs away to set up elsewhere. also would be good for large maps where events breakup power flows

Somehow, I suspect that hard limits on the total number of a unit type that you can build (even if you can expand that capacity) will be terribly popular.

I made a similar suggestion for limiting the Titan class, but it appears that the community doesn't like the idea of hard limits lie that in the core game, but only as an option to custom mappers.

i was only really thinking of custom mappers, the idea occured as i was working on a CW2 map   ;)

[lurkily]

having the ability to increase the number of available weapons through tech pickups would be cool.
so if you only get "x" blasters to start you could have "parts" for "y" more set as values in the tech items.
also forward energy stores would be cool, so you can set up situation where the player can leave a defence running for a while, whilst the LS runs away to set up elsewhere. also would be good for large maps where events breakup power flows

Somehow, I suspect that hard limits on the total number of a unit type that you can build (even if you can expand that capacity) will be terribly popular.

I made a similar suggestion for limiting the Titan class, but it appears that the community doesn't like the idea of hard limits lie that in the core game, but only as an option to custom mappers.

i was only really thinking of custom mappers, the idea occured as i was working on a CW2 map   ;)

So this is a per-map concept, not like finding stuff on many maps to take to later maps q on the sector map?

[teknotiss]

well i thought it would be a bit late in the process for main game changes, and was really only thinking about custom maps. i just wanted a way of limiting unit numbers at different amounts thoughout a map, allowing more as the map gets harder.
i never thought about anything more than per map, although it could be useful in campaign maps i have no idea if it would be feasible to track unit limits between campaign maps.

[bla3]

I've been on a CW2 kick lately, going back and finding customs that I haven't finished and playing them, etc, and I was thinking about what I would like to see either as an update or for CW3. I have no idea what the state of CW3 is, how close to finished it is, etc, or if these ideas have already been suggested, but here goes:

Upgrades:

Either a special game mode, or just natively move to this method, but algebraic/exponential cost increases buy infinite levels. Level 5 energy improvement costs 35 research, well, keep going. After level 5 it should start to get very very expensive, but I've played some long maps where farming a few thousand research wasn't out of the question. That obviously is not at all normal, but I've played MANY maps where I had the option of letting my research facilities keep going even after I had bought everything, so further refinements would have been possible, even if they were minor. Obviously research improving tech should be incredibly stupid expensive after level 3 or so, and improvements like weapon range/damage and energy store should offer only marginal, small improvements (1% per level beyond 5?) for the higher levels. This would have virtually no impact on quick maps, but add a new level of refinement for larger, longer slogs.

Packet Delivery Unit: Costs a high amount of energy to build, say, 100 energy, and then has a 200ish energy capacity. Is armored like conversion bombs to stand a not-insignificant trip through a creeper buildup. Then when it reaches a clear spot that is in range of a beacon, it can be armed, and it will serve as an energy packet source. You could then build makers or a wormhole there, whatever. Bring it back to within range of the regular network to recharge it.

Enemies - This is more of a CW3/4 idea, but I think it would be interesting to fight computer controlled splinter groups of humanity with their own custom creeper. This would also allow for multiplayer, if that's a goal. Each 'player' or 'faction' has a unique creeper variant that is hostile to all other creeper variants and units. Blasters, launchers, and buildings/motherships would be treated as drones for targeting. Events could cause an enemy splinter group to warp in after you've spent a considerable amount of time clearing a map, and suddenly you're faced with a two or three front war.

[Grauniad]

Packet Delivery Unit:

http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/mule/

[bla3]

Packet Delivery Unit:

http://knucklecracker.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/mule/

Wow I am behind, that looks great. And cool! It was already though of, but I was thinking along the lines of CW2's vertical maps with a side view, not CW1's horizontal maps with a top view. I didn't know he was going back to the top down view for CW3. I like the new look, very cool.

edit - the only concern I have is the packet system - that's a big part of the cpu overhead for the first two games, and adding ore packets to it makes sense logistically and realistically (having ore magically appear where you need it was nice, but not realistic at all) but I worry about my little abused laptop with the T4200 or whatever crummy cpu. =P

[Lord_Farin]

edit - the only concern I have is the packet system - that's a big part of the cpu overhead for the first two games, and adding ore packets to it makes sense logistically and realistically (having ore magically appear where you need it was nice, but not realistic at all) but I worry about my little abused laptop with the T4200 or whatever crummy cpu. =P

This will be countered mainly by the fact that the new game has a C# core, which is *a lot* faster than the old AIR.

[CobraKill]

Yes the Unity is being used instead of Adobe AIR on CW3. Unity blows AIR away in terms of performance.

[tornado]

you over looked something

multilayer
mode has the concept of using 2 networks and creeper all against each other
my idea is a necessity for anti creeper usage
also my machine was designed for adobe air on the windows side and unity ruins this
plus the ubuntu sides despise wine
also that no wine install thing doesn't work as kbuntu auto installs wine and doesn't tell you.
case closed

[Michionlion]

you over looked something

multilayer
mode has the concept of using 2 networks and creeper all against each other
my idea is a necessity for anti creeper usage
also my machine was designed for adobe air on the windows side and unity ruins this
plus the ubuntu sides despise wine
also that no wine install thing doesn't work as kbuntu auto installs wine and doesn't tell you.
case closed

there is no such thing as being "designed for adobe air".  If it is a computer, C++ (unity's main language) will run faster.  Linux will be getting native support as soon as unity 4 makes a stable release (or so i think).

[Ebon Heart]

Think about it mathematically. There are negative numbers, and positive numbers. There are no * numbers.

[Grauniad]

Think about it mathematically. There are negative numbers, and positive numbers. There are no * numbers.

Actually, I think I understand what Tornado is driving at.

He perceives "layers" of negative and positive numbers.

The current implementation does not support that, but if anyone could adequately conceive and code it, then you could have any number of creeper types, each with an opposite type as well. Interaction between the different layers may have to be codified as well, again, an exercise best left to our brethren in the far future of Creeper World. We have enough trouble with just two types.

Then we'd need someone to come up with a Unifying Theory of Creeper. :)

One thing I know, Adobe Air does not have the computational capabilities for such a complex model. Not if you want it to be usable.

[lurkily]

Think about it mathematically. There are negative numbers, and positive numbers. There are no * numbers.

Actually, I think I understand what Tornado is driving at.

He perceives "layers" of negative and positive numbers.

The current implementation does not support that, but if anyone could adequately conceive and code it, then you could have any number of creeper types, each with an opposite type as well. Interaction between the different layers may have to be codified as well, again, an exercise best left to our brethren in the far future of Creeper World. We have enough trouble with just two types.

Then we'd need someone to come up with a Unifying Theory of Creeper. :)

One thing I know, Adobe Air does not have the computational capabilities for such a complex model. Not if you want it to be usable.

I think it would be far more organized to re-build each creeper as a separate number, so that you could have one unified model for handling all possible interactions.

With multiple positives and negatives, you'd have one model for negative/positive creeper, one model for negative and positive fluid #2 and 3, and then a third model for how those new fluids interact when they meet ac/creeper.

[Grauniad]

I think it would be far ...

Not every problem needs a solution...