CW3 Suggestions Redux

[cooltv27]

one thing that would make the game harder is that spores smart target, ya its been suggested before but I have an idea how, just before launch the spore checks each building, then go toward the one where it hits the least amount of particle beam range, if there are more then 1 then it just randomly picks between them

[lurkily]

That actually grants you control over spores.  Make sure all buildings have at least one coverage, then put one exposed collector out there, that has many beams between it and the spore tower.  (Yet also outside of range of the collector itself.  Then you force the spores to attack an exposed target by running a gauntlet.

Honestly, there is such a thing as too much intelligence.  It's much harder to code something that has motive, but can make mistakes, then it is to code a mathematically perfect aggressor, that never fires a shot more than necessary to take your last point of health, and never misses.  It would be simple to code spores so that every spore passed through the minimum amount of fire from beams, and so that every spore path entered beam range at the same instant, to maximize beam's drain on your economy and to try to overwhelm your defenses while striking through weak corridors of fire.  That's just math and logic.  Code is good with that.

I'm not sure that's best for a casual gamer's gameplay, though.

Remember, V gets more player complaints about the games being hard, than about them being easy, according to one of his dev blog posts.

[Ronini]

I don't know if that is just my impression, but I'm actually regularly flabbergasted that a spore/phantom manages to find a hole in my defense. Those beasty little things.

[cooltv27]

That actually grants you control over spores.  Make sure all buildings have at least one coverage, then put one exposed collector out there, that has many beams between it and the spore tower.  (Yet also outside of range of the collector itself.  Then you force the spores to attack an exposed target by running a gauntlet.

I meant that it checks how many pieces of beam range it has to go through total, so if you did that it would probably not attack that collector
then maybe it has a customizable chance to have it be smart (like you can enter 20% chance or 99% chance

[lurkily]

I think I would rather do something less calculated.  I'd rather see behavior like a threat map - spore towers remembering the areas in which they've come under fire, and preferring targets that lead their fire through other places.  This would lead them to constantly probe different parts of your defense, as it they were looking for holes or lightly protected lanes through your defenses.

Basic behavior: Spores add 'threat' to their own mental image of the map in an area around themselves as they come under fire.  'Threat' reduces itself by a small amount over time, but the threat generated by a downed spore should take ten or twenty launch cycles to fade.

That way they will remember where your defenses are strong.  If you expand to new territory, they will repeatedly test this new territory until the threat generated by your vigorous defense is established, and begins to equal the rest of the threat on the map.  As threat fades, they will begin to re-test old regions of your base.  If you are in the habit of moving beams forward, creating a 'line' that advances, you may end up seeing spores slip through gaps, as threat in poorly defended regions fades.

[BGMFH]

I really like the threat map idea, but can we add a value/vulnerability map as well?

Id est, the spore will occasionally decide to hit a valuable area even if it is heavily protected, just to make sure those defenses are still there, and havent been moved.

[lurkily]

I really like the threat map idea, but can we add a value/vulnerability map as well?

Id est, the spore will occasionally decide to hit a valuable area even if it is heavily protected, just to make sure those defenses are still there, and havent been moved.

They will do that already.

As they attack away from heavily defended areas, 'threat' fades slowly.  Thus over time, they will return to that area and test it again.  'threat' will be added again, so probes there will be infrequent - unless you move beams out of the area.  Then as threat buildup is less severe in spores passing through that area, they might test it more.

EDIT: I'd rather not see too much intelligence added.  Many things in the creeper universe seem to respond to your presence, without having a directed intent to kill you.  Creeper and runners and digi and spores don't actually seem to hate you - they just act because you're there. 

They're like mosquitoes and scorpions and bears.  Mosquitoes carrying malaria don't hate you, they're just hungry.  Scorpions don't hate you, it's just that it's so warm in your shoe.  Bears don't hate you, it's just that your marshmallows are so yummy!  By entering their range, you may invite their ravages, but not because they want you to die.  That's kind of the sense I get from CW3 so far.

[Chawe800]

But the creeper does hate you. It seeks to eliminate anything for the purity of nothingness. That's why I personally believe Creeper weapons should be more aggressive and intent on destroying you. I'm not here to argue with you but I personally believe creeper should be more aggressive and try to destroy you. But that's Virgil's decision on which way to swing in CW3.

About the threat readings could we consider the potential to use this idea with runners as well? That would seem effective but it would require different coding to make sure the Runners don't ignore your snipers while they are moving.

[lurkily]

The reason I hesitate to suggest malicious intent is because . . . well, canon, continuity . . . tradition.  Malice and forethought and hate on the part of these enemies could work and could make an excellent game, but would it still be Creeper World?

A game designer starts not with mechanics or with the awesome idea, but with the experience he wants to indulge the player in.  I think that what we're talking about changing is something fundamental to the atmosphere and the feeling of the game. 

I'm trying to aim my suggestions in directions that don't pull away from what I see as being tied to the essential experience . . .

Of course, no two people experience the same events the same way, so all of those reasons are entirely subjective.

[4xC]

At this point, I think that a lot of suggestions going on around here may be misguiding the original ideals of the CW series. For one thing, I understand that the majority of players are casual and not as RTS-oriented as the rest of us. And I also take it that not many casual players contribute ideas and communication online whereas compared to hard-core gamers with long histories on here.

What I mean to say is that not enough input seems to be coming from the majority of players, and I don't think that the backbone of our input is as valuable as the input of the casual players. The problem is, I don't think enough casual players are much for online logs and communication like the rest of us. So as good as it is to give input on a forum site for casual players' paradise, there is evidently not enough of the right kind. If conducting a non-online survey was possible, I would suggest it, but having a majority of players who are not commonly oriented for online communication makes it seem somewhat hopeless that CW will be steered correctly enough. It's a crying shame, but I see no reason why it is not true.   :-[:( :'(

As to how saddening the thought is, follow this link: and pick which one you decide is sadder than all the others. Your choice will be what you can imagine going through my mind right now.

[Ronini]

I don't think you can apply a term like "correct" (let alone "correct enough") for a video game. At least not in general. The categories of correct and wrong can only occur on a very individual personal level. And it's not even a matter of pleasing the majority. If nature abhors a vacuum, so does game development. Producing a niche game can be very successful.
As casual players seldom play a game after they have completed the main missions, I don't think they always are the main target group of a developer. They are from a sales perspective, true. But this only means that a game has to be kept simple enough (the bar for that is actually pretty high, though), as not to discourage those kinds of players. To clarify: if you play Chronom/Code/Custom missions more than once or twice, ever, you aren't a casual gamer any more.
Quite another thing is deciding to make your opinion heard. With these forums and the blog, KC provides ample opportunity for that. But it takes your own motivation to actually post something.
Also, it's not that there are any poll's around here, so that we'd actually get to decide anything.

EDIT: I don't mean to complain about that. It's just that V has made the right (i.e. "not wrong") calls for the past two games. I strongly believe a game will become better, if the developers make it the way they like it to be, rather than try to please as large a number of people as possible.

[Grauniad]

This: "We wrote the game primarily for ourselves‭ ‬– ie‭ ‬we were the judges of what the game should be,‭ ‬and we wanted something very different from what had gone before.‭ ‬That freedom was a big part of that,‭ ‬so yes,‭ ‬the freedom was our intention from the start,‭..."


Not Virgil's words, but the sentiments of another indie game developer. It encapsulates the difference between a game programmer/publisher and an indie developer.

[lurkily]

I'm pretty sure, based on V's previous games, that he's quite aware that his main market is a casual one, and that this market is quite under-represented in places like online forums.

And as Gran pointed out, the 'Correct' direction for the game is the direction that conveys the experience V wants to convey.

[Grauniad]

And as Gran pointed out, the 'Correct' direction for the game is the direction that conveys the experience V wants to convey.

???  That's new.

[Chawe800]

I feel having an enemy that truly hates you is part of the design of the game Virgil created. I felt spores and drones were extremely malicious and truly tried to destroy you. But that's my own opinion and experience and as you said Lurkily "Of course, no two people experience the same events the same way, so all those reasons are entirely subjective."

We probably should redirect the discussion back onto suggesting ideas and not what we and others believe is the intended path for CW. :P