Creeper World 3 Suggestions Initiative

[Chawe800]

Anyone else totally get the feeling Virgil is about to release something huge. Next update? To quote V from March 11:

And of course some sneaky new enemies that will yet again redefine the strategy genre....

I feel he may unveil a cool new update the 30th!   :)

(Sorry I had too I'll avoid stuff like this in the future)

[tornado]

blasters fire solid projectiles right.
so you could charge the shots with anti-creeper.

[J]

Anyone else totally get the feeling Virgil is about to release something huge. Next update? To quote V from March 11:

And of course some sneaky new enemies that will yet again redefine the strategy genre....

I feel he may unveil a cool new update the 30th!   :)

(Sorry I had too I'll avoid stuff like this in the future)

All I can say is that there is a new never seen before enemy on his to do list (but before I said too much, there still is a very small chance it won't make it into the game)

[4xC]

All I can say is that there is a new never seen before enemy on his to do list (but before I said too much, there still is a very small chance it won't make it into the game)

True. As advanced as later games are, only so much can pass.

[Mr.H]

Well then I guess it's a great time for unit management and use suggestions:


1. As stated before being able to modify bomber firing modes would be great. This could be expanded on by having a choice of firing modes for more weapons, i.e. you can set the blaster on sustained, burst, normal, or sporadic.
2. The faction movement feature of CW2 in CW3 would be handy.
3. Global unit command, or within a click-drag box, that tell your units to 'retreat, charge, land, formation' etc. This allows for quick easy unit management.
4. Unit number/color code. Each unit is given it's very own unique combination of color coding on it's plating, or a small number above it to allow you to discern between weapons. Custom names for map makers would be great too.
5. Formations- Line, Arrow(triangular, strongest unit at front), reverse Arrow, Arc, Squadrons (units spread out in groups), Protection(vunerable units in centre, strongest units exposed), diagonal(left,right,etc). Custom user-defined formations?
6. Hot-keys: Self-explanatory
7. Unit overwatch: General health meter(e.g. 70% average health), Unit count, Near-Destruction-Units(NDU's)

[4xC]

I have to say I am impressed that the CW series would use the click-scroll box feature that I normally see in Starcraft and such. That makes it easier to select units.

[Shrike30]

I've got a couple of suggestions regarding the terraforming interface:

1)  To smooth a given area of lumps (or fill in a trench), it looks like you currently place your cursor over a given spot, figure out how high it is, then go to the menubar, set the height to that, then return to the area you intend to terraform and "paint" a desired height.  A common feature from graphics editing programs is the ability to use a ctrl-click (or other modified click) to copy the color under the cursor at the time.  If the same could be applied to the terraforming interface (ctrl-click on a given location, and the terraforming tool's desired height is set to the height of the ground under your cursor), it'd make filling potholes, smoothing roads, or building raised platforms to a given location a little simpler.

2)  In the same vein of drag-placing straight lines of structures, it'd be nice to be able to drag-place straight lines of terraforming.  As terraforming is done with a painting tool, this would require another modified click (likely shift-click, if ctrl-click is used for my first suggestion) which locks the terraforming tool into sketching straight lines along the compass points (and potentially lines on the 45 degree offset).  The wall demonstrated in the Roma Victor video could be drawn quickly by moving the cursor to one side of the screen, holding down shift, clicking, and zipping the mouse across the screen, rather than requiring the commander to put in the extra focus to sketch a perfectly straight line across however many cells.

While playing on a CW1 sized map, these suggestions might not make a big difference, but I think they'd really have a benefit on some of the *huge* maps demonstrated.  Being able to quickly paint a straight, 3-cell-wide "Great Wall of Creepa" across a few hundred cells worth of a map the size of the "Walloping" screenshot while zoomed pretty far out, without having to go down and fiddle with little jogs and jinks in the wall where you didn't track the mouse perfectly straight, would be nice.

[Chawe800]

I have decided to do a rundown of Creeper in the Wind pointing out some serious concerns I am having:

Let's start at the 4 minute mark: He currently has 9.6 energy production and since I know every reactor boosts energy by .6 and he has 8 reactors he is generating 4.8 energy from collectors. He is currently supplying and constructing 17 things at once and this isn't a major deficit affliction. This scares me this seems like it should really provide a lot more pressure to V (Not completely kill him but make him feel a little more nervous).

Let's go back to 2:47 V is constructing 7 things at once on only 4.8 energy and it looks like no deficit problems whatsoever. I haven't found this to be too sever of a problem.

Now what really confuses me is at 5:20: V is currently producing 15 energy and he has 15 things building or needing ammunition. So why does the network display this as a deficit bump. I understand weapons can use up to 2 energy but it felt turrets and mortars could adjust to only using 1 energy in CW1 BY the 5:40 mark V has accumulated 18 energy production I found this outstanding to set up such a solid economy to incredibly rapidly.

Now at the 11 minute mark V is only using 12 energy and producing 27 energy. He currently has 12 weapons requiring packets and nothing building so every weapon costs one. So how then can energy deficit be caused at the 5 minute mark for weapons using so much energy and yet only use 1 each at the 7 mark?

Virgil I love you but you're kinda scaring me here. I don't mean to hate on CW3 but I see some really awkward flaws that might ruin the fun and challenge. I'd appreciate any replies and comments on the subject and to see if any alpha testers can confirm on some of the problems here.

I love how CW3 is doing and I just want to make it better  ;)

[Nemoricus]

Now at the 11 minute mark V is only using 12 energy and producing 27 energy. He currently has 12 weapons requiring packets and nothing building so every weapon costs one. So how then can energy deficit be caused at the 5 minute mark for weapons using so much energy and yet only use 1 each at the 7 mark?

Bear in mind that energy use by weapons is dependent on their rate of fire as well as the number of weapons you have. If you've got a bunch of cannons, and they're all deep behind your lines, they have 0 energy use. In contrast, if they're all firing full-speed at Creeper, you need (Rate of fire* ammo/shot) * (Lots of cannons) energy/s to supply them.

[4xC]

Now at the 11 minute mark V is only using 12 energy and producing 27 energy. He currently has 12 weapons requiring packets and nothing building so every weapon costs one. So how then can energy deficit be caused at the 5 minute mark for weapons using so much energy and yet only use 1 each at the 7 mark?

Bear in mind that energy use by weapons is dependent on their rate of fire as well as the number of weapons you have. If you've got a bunch of cannons, and they're all deep behind your lines, they have 0 energy use. In contrast, if they're all firing full-speed at Creeper, you need (Rate of fire* ammo/shot) * (Lots of cannons) energy/s to supply them.

Agreed. There's a lot to consider for anything before you make a statement like that, Chawe800.

[Grauniad]

I've got a couple of suggestions regarding the terraforming interface:

1)  To smooth a given area of lumps (or fill in a trench), it looks like you currently place your cursor over a given spot, figure out how high it is, then go to the menubar, set the height to that, then return to the area you intend to terraform and "paint" a desired height.  A common feature from graphics editing programs is the ability to use a ctrl-click (or other modified click) to copy the color under the cursor at the time.  If the same could be applied to the terraforming interface (ctrl-click on a given location, and the terraforming tool's desired height is set to the height of the ground under your cursor), it'd make filling potholes, smoothing roads, or building raised platforms to a given location a little simpler.

We already have the ability to "pick up" a terrain height.

2)  In the same vein of drag-placing straight lines of structures, it'd be nice to be able to drag-place straight lines of terraforming.  As terraforming is done with a painting tool, this would require another modified click (likely shift-click, if ctrl-click is used for my first suggestion) which locks the terraforming tool into sketching straight lines along the compass points (and potentially lines on the 45 degree offset).  The wall demonstrated in the Roma Victor video could be drawn quickly by moving the cursor to one side of the screen, holding down shift, clicking, and zipping the mouse across the screen, rather than requiring the commander to put in the extra focus to sketch a perfectly straight line across however many cells.

Once the map editor goes into beta, I'm sure this request will come up again. I have already seen at least one request for it.

[Chawe800]

Bear in mind that energy use by weapons is dependent on their rate of fire as well as the number of weapons you have. If you've got a bunch of cannons, and they're all deep behind your lines, they have 0 energy use. In contrast, if they're all firing full-speed at Creeper, you need (Rate of fire* ammo/shot) * (Lots of cannons) energy/s to supply them.

Alright I'll give you that but I'm still confused on that energy spike at the 5 minute mark. I don't really know why it was so severe. Is it because the cost of reactors is a lot?

Also that really isn't my main concern I just wanted to point that out a little. My real concern is how energy deficit really doesn't seem that major right now in CW3  :-\

[Nemoricus]

The spike at 5:00 is because his demand temporarily fell under his production, which gave him a brief period of surplus.

Note that the first bar graph is energy *storage*, the second production, and the third use.

Also, the severity of a deficit is related to your position, the amount you're short by, and how long it is. In this map, Virgil has a major high ground advantage, which makes deficits less of a problem than they would otherwise be.

[4xC]

At this point, I think it's safe to say that the bias is the few field and gravity manipulation.

[lurkily]

I'd like to see the bomber drop 3 different kinds of AC bombs.

I think current bombing procedures pretty much do all of this.

blasters fire solid projectiles right.

Blasters fire beams.  Pulse cannons as used in CW3 do fire solid projectiles.  Whether they can carry an AC payload is probably too far in the future to determine.

1. As stated before being able to modify bomber firing modes would be great. This could be expanded on by having a choice of firing modes for more weapons, i.e. you can set the blaster on sustained, burst, normal, or sporadic.
2. The faction movement feature of CW2 in CW3 would be handy.
3. Global unit command, or within a click-drag box, that tell your units to 'retreat, charge, land, formation' etc. This allows for quick easy unit management.
4. Unit number/color code. Each unit is given it's very own unique combination of color coding on it's plating, or a small number above it to allow you to discern between weapons. Custom names for map makers would be great too.
5. Formations- Line, Arrow(triangular, strongest unit at front), reverse Arrow, Arc, Squadrons (units spread out in groups), Protection(vunerable units in centre, strongest units exposed), diagonal(left,right,etc). Custom user-defined formations?
6. Hot-keys: Self-explanatory
7. Unit overwatch: General health meter(e.g. 70% average health), Unit count, Near-Destruction-Units(NDU's)

I addressed 1 earlier.  With 2, I think you mean formation movement.  As shown explicitly in early alpha videos, this is already implemented. 

3: I think this is a little complex for the game.  Pre-set formations for units will never be suitable to the particular terrain involved, and our units neither charge nor retreat.  Our units need behaviors to set before gamewide unit behaviors can be as useful as they are in some other games, like Epic War.

4: I am worried that this would make it difficult to immediately locate every unit of a specific type.

5: I can't think of a single situation - except for a 100% flat map - in which a one-size-fits-all formation will be useful within the constraints of irregular terrain.  This sounds like something that would be highly awesome in something like a 4x game with real-time combat elements, though.

6: Yes.

7: Not sure what you mean by an overwatch.  Are you talking about a generic alert when a unit is under particular threat?