Creeper World 3 Suggestions Initiative

[Chawe800]

Expanding the concept of limited relays would it be more helpful to have a small toggle that makes everything except command nodes and relays transparent as to be able to edit your relay network's settings in a much more simple way. Fussing around with the relay network could be dangerous if you go and cut off half of your network by accident but I think it would be helpful.
It would be a small button (similar to display creeper fields) which allowed you to view your relay network and how it's established. Since these relay settings can be quite confusing I feel it should be something available to turn on and off in the settings. It should be automatically off and the player should be able to view what the relay settings actually do. This might appeal to the hardcore audience but It might just be an annoyance for some people who want it to remain off throughout the game.
I think most of us can agree we would really appreciate the ability to siphon off half of our energy supply towards supplies berthas (and maybe other awesome titans) and our front lines while being able to view what would happen first so we don't completely kill ourselves. A possible solution for this would be the ability to preemptively view how much energy separate portions of our energy network produce. This might be a bit micro-intensive and confusing to pull off though.
We all like to ramble on a little sometimes Shrike30  ;)

(argh whenever i'm ready to post someone always posts as I'm typing  :P)

[RedVenom]

Suggestion: control what packets are produced

if you are low on energy you can't produce all needed packets but you could priorize ammo over construction that maybe half of the needed ammo and only a quarter of the needed construction packets are produced

[Shrike30]

My image of the uses for limited relays never had more than 1-3 pairs on an entire map, as most networks would have a Command Node on them somewhere and the limited relay is mostly about controlling the sharing of resources with another independent network (command node, energy generation, and consuming structures).  Since we can't drop more than 3 command nodes, you'd only need 1 pair of limited relays to join two separate networks, or three pairs to join three separate networks if you wanted to get really complicated (something I don't forsee happening, but I wouldn't want to limit someone else's tactical options).

Being able to see your "network overlay" might be most useful for finding slowdowns or chokepoints ("oh, no wonder it takes forever for packets to get to my frontline... the first few jumps are through collectors, not relays"), or quickly spotting where your network connection got broken on a larger map.  If Connector, Relay, and Unpowered connections are all different colors, that'd be a rapid means of gathering information that seems like it could be activated simply by not drawing everything else.  It strikes me as being closer to holding down R in CW2 to find what terrain has creeper hidden away inside of it... hold down the key, and all player-built structures except the ones directly related to moving resources around disappear.

RedVenom: I was a big user of the CW1 toggles that let you turn on/off production of gray, red, and green packets.  Getting those back would be great; having a little slider bar (even if it's as granular as 0%/50%/100%) at a command node would be even better.

[lurkily]

Honestly, I would only use limiter relays to choke off parts of my network that overconsume.  And what you're describing is so complex that disabling 3 out of 5 berthas to reduce their packet demand by 60% just seems so much simpler.

One of this game's biggest markets is the casual player - simplicity and streamlined control is going to be critical in marketing the game to that crowd.

You may want to take a look at Harvest:Massive Encounter.  It's a TD with a similar, but different network structure in which linking relays and directing the flow of energy along them is highly helpful.

[RedVenom]

One of this game's biggest markets is the casual player - simplicity and streamlined control is going to be critical in marketing the game to that crowd.

you are right.
I think that some handy options well placed dont make it to complex (you can just ignore them) but can increase the joy of other.
If someone like to build big groups of units (like me) you have to stop your construction plan to not drain your front.

it depends on the interface if it is good to implement then is could be great maybe a ruler for every packettype at the base.
Or there could be some options at relays so you can place them and just use them or you click on them and change the amount of packets or the rate for a type.
Every unit and option is a design question not to complex not to simple. Balancing is hard.

[lurkily]

One of this game's biggest markets is the casual player - simplicity and streamlined control is going to be critical in marketing the game to that crowd.

you are right.
I think that some handy options well placed dont make it to complex (you can just ignore them) but can increase the joy of other.

The difficulty in this is that by presenting it as an energy management tool - as opposed to just a disable or disarm button - it is also presented as the only energy management tool, and I wouldn't want new players thinking that it should be their primary management tool.  It would lead them to try and handle complex situations with complex tools that they would not enjoy using, when the simpler solution that wouldn't mire them in details might go unnoticed.

One thing about the casual player, is that it doesn't take a ton of frustration with interface to lose their attention.

[Shrike30]

I usually give even the "casual" gamer a little more credit than that.  I don't imagine this theoretical "casual" player messing around with limited relays... a basic relay already does what he wants it to, namely connects A to B and turns red when he's doing too much at once.  I imagine the most complex network setup they might have would involve command nodes that aren't linked to each other due to geography, but that's about it.

I'll be able to do 80% of what I'd like to see limited relays used for simply by dropping a second Command Node and using that network exclusively to drive high-peak-demand systems (Berthas are my prime example, but dozens of strafers might be another), preventing the rest of my network from suffering brownouts when the big guns come online.  I just feel it'd add some interesting depth that more advanced players could benefit from, without being an overly complicated modification to the basic game.

[RedVenom]

hm I don't really know what to say.
i think it's not very complex but i'm not a causual player and i know none.
i had the feeling that in this game there should be multiple ways to solve a situation. so i want so suggest a possibility do solve low energy at a different way.
i think it's usefull, easy and not to hard to inplement unfortunately i dont know what causal players would do or not do whit such an option

p.s.: thanks for suggesting "Harvest:Massive Encounter" started the demo and looks funny

[lurkily]

I'm not worried about the casual gamer who stays long enough to see past the surface - they'll see how things work, and probably understand the ramifications of disable or disarm.  I'm more worried about the casual gamer who tries the free flash version on some website, finds relays with multiple indicators that aren't always obvious, and energy management tools they don't fully understand.

A player like that will only be presented with one obvious energy management tool.  In most cases, relying on that tool to limit their overbuilding is less than optimal.  And if they don't like the solution, they may just move on to the next game in the 'popular games' list.

I myself have discarded games on Kongregate that doubtless had a lot of depth because one or two features or UI design or some single thing killed it for me.  I don't doubt there's at least a few games in which I overlooked some saving grace that should have been simple to see.

hm I don't really know what to say.
i think it's not very complex but i'm not a causual player and i know none.

Here's why I say complex:
It requires the ability to precisely limit energy, down to the packet.  It provides a clear and obvious indication of what this number you're selecting/typing/whatever does  The function it performs will not always be obvious just from network behavior.  It requires a way to show on the map, without selecting the relay, what the maximum limit is.  It requires a way to show what percentage of that maximum limit is currently being used.  It requires for it to be obvious to the player, not just what relays are limited, but what units are accessed only by limited relays, due to map sizes that can be much, much larger than the screen.

I love games with complex networks, rare though they are.  Harvest, "The Space Game", (And one clone of TSG on android,) and the CW series are the only games of their type I've ever encountered with an emphasis on strong networks structure.

I think what you're trying to suggest is very interesting, has limited cases in which it could be useful, and could make an interesting game - I'm just not sure it's what CW needs.  I think it would be much more suited to a game with more focus on resource management, where directing and allocating resources was more central - in that instance, a game with a complex structure of interacting rules on the network could create some very interesting economic machines.

EDIT: Anyway, I've said enough on the subject.  I'm gonna shut up, and let this subject get back onto a more general track, instead of being sidetracked into discussing this one thing.

[4xC]

As to stopping packets from passing to other networks with vafrying relays, why does it even need to be specific as to what doesn't pass between multiple networks? If we are avoiding combined networks, why don't the relays just be deactivated?

Plus, if we avoid using guppies in scenarios like these, we would likely just be rejecting a CW3 divine spark. I mean to say that the use of the guppy sounds like it's going to be so big, it should not be denied so.

[RedVenom]

As to stopping packets from passing to other networks with vafrying relays, why does it even need to be specific as to what doesn't pass between multiple networks? If we are avoiding combined networks, why don't the relays just be deactivated?

if you have 20 bertas and 40 collectors and you just deaktivate the part of the network you get less energy and that would be fatal if you have an energy crisis.
you could just deaktivate the bertas but then you have to aktivate them when you want to use them and deaktivate on the next crisis.
and maybe you want to build some units just to be secure and its not important but you want them to finish.

It's not that you can't do thinks without some regulations you can turn most thinks on and off and that work but in the case of the bertas you just set it once
and then don't have to care about that anymore.
if you have enough energy they load and if you are low they are the first that get less or nothing.


to the guppy
i think they are more likely near the front and not in the backbone of your network
also is works with them to you just have to place them at one relay as a bottleneck set the options there and place other units/buildings behind that
its may be dangerous to create a single point of failure but there have to be a risk at every techology.

[Chawe800]

I personally would use one way relays and basically no other features. Having the option of one way relays seems similar and i think the causal market could get accustomed to it.

As for the demo just permantly disable these relay mechanics

[lurkily]

and maybe you want to build some units just to be secure and its not important but you want them to finish.

This is the only case that I can see a use.  If you need to heavily overbuild in a location connected to a CN at a bottleneck of only one relay.  This is only rarely useful to me, because I typically overbuild in protected areas, and in those areas my network is typically quite interconnected.

My solution to this when I DO need it is to overbuild first, then built the network out one collector or relay at a time to expand production at a rate that's acceptable to me.  Or, you can disable all the units, and use double-click to select groups of units in an area.  Then you can re-enable build projects in groups.  It takes a little more work, but managing construction is easier than having to manage the timing of every build project.

you could just deaktivate the bertas but then you have to aktivate them when you want to use them and deaktivate on the next crisis.

...

it's not that you can't do things without some regulations you can turn most thinks on and off and that work but in the case of the bertas you just set it once
and then don't have to care about that anymore.

This isn't quite true.  Limited relays would cause the same problem - you'd have to activate and deactivate them every time a crisis came or passed, or else your berthas would slow down their fire rate.  Just like deactivating some of your berthas reduces the shots/min being thrown out as well as energy consumption, if you limit a relay to that same level of energy consumption, even if you have 20 berthas, your fire rate will reduce to the same amount unless you unlimit the relay when the crisis passes.

[Shrike30]

Limited relays as I imagined them don't have any sort of sliders or adjustable levels for setting how much of a resource passes them, they're just a relay that can be set not to pass a particular resource in a particular direction.  I entirely agree that having the ability to set maximum throughput over a relay is way too fiddly, I just wanted a clicky box that can turn on/off packets/energy/etc moving in that direction.

That giant bertha farm could pass energy to the main network when it was all powered up and generating a surplus, but wouldn't be able to drain the main network dry when a barrage started.  The farm would have a CN of it's own, an energy economy of it's own, and likely a bunch of Storage so that you could get off more than one volley before your rate of fire tanked out, but that's about it.  You could also use this model to support dozens of strafers, or a rear base dedicated to constructing new weapons you're flying to the front.  The main thing having these two networks connected by a limited relay would do is to let the rear network contribute to the front when it has a surplus, which couldn't happen with seperate networks.

[lurkily]

How is this different than the dedicated relay?  As I understand it, a dedicated relay is a relay that will not accept packets unless they intend to travel along the explicit link you have set out for them.  A dedicated relay leading from your firebase to your main base would achieve the same effect, with no differences that are immediately apparent to me.  Am I missing something?