CW3 Suggestions Redux

[tornado]

hey

i have a kindle touch and it updates to slow for a game like creeper word
which has enough fast paced action to render a kindle
infective in play ing cw as you are dead before the screen loads
it is that slow.

[Ronini]

Hey all,
I just came up with this idea from watching an old blog post video (and partly from a new CW1 series I am planning on making).
In my series, there are these reactors, which I call "Force Reactors"
You'll know what I mean when I describe how they work if you know what the four fundamental forces are (gravity, strong/weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force(s) that play a role in subatomic particle interactions (yes, I am a bit of a geek :D)

(Note: this is the science I envisioned behind the reactor, not core gameplay mechanics. I just wished to share this)
Basically, the reactors are designed to use the difference of the fundamental forces to create something out of it (say, energy, or exotic matter). If, say, you are playing around with the strong nuclear force, and the gravitic constant is different (i envisioned martian gravity instead of earth-normal) then strange reactions occur inside, and through some science I am not going to describe here, strange types of matter or energy is formed. On its own (or whether through the application of normal matter to the strange matter) certain types of matter will annihlate normal matter, creating energy. Or, through certain procedures, the matter could be used in an industrial and/or commercial setting.

Now on to my ideas for in-game application:
Upon building the reactor, you can designate whether it produces energy, anti-creeper, ore, or other packets.
It takes energy to catalyze (start) the reactants and different amounts of energy to fuel the reaction until the final product is released. I figure since it creates strange matter that future resources should also be able to made in the reactor.
It can consume any packet type you wish and produce a packet type you want (or resource). Energy itself can be used as the reactant as well, at a high cost, or less packets and more energy can be used in a given reaction. The reactor would take a while to build and takes energy to maintain (the matter created is volatile, therefore energy shields are needed).
What do you guys think?

If I understood correctly, you are proposing a form of marketplace, where you can trade one resource into another. While I like the basic idea (I can think of settings where it would be really great to convert ore to energy) I doubt the device would be worth the trouble. Especially if you consider that the game has only three resources (energy, ore and refined ore (AC)), really.  Ammo and build packets are energy, only coloured differently to mark their different purpose. But there is no storage of ammo or build packets that would require conversion to something if you had one in excess.
So, the biggest benefit (apart from ore<->energy conversion on maps where you either have a lot of space, but little to no ore, or lots of ore, but little space for collectors/reactors) of your reactors would be that they are able to cut short distribution distance, and this would only work if the reactor could take energy without receiving packets (collectors and reactors don't send energy packets back to the CN, do they?) and turn this energy into ammo, build, ac packets. Then they'd work as dedicated command nodes. If they are limited to only being able to produce one type of packet, a small size would be justified. By this, you could place them were a CN wouldn't fit, so moving one of those closer to the action wouldn't be possible.

[lurkily]

There have been posts here and there about a potential titan for converting ore to AC or vice-versa.  It's my opinion that conversion like that should come at rip-off values.  Even though a mapmaker can disable it, when permitted, the mapmaker is permitting the player to transcend the limits of the map's geography.  I feel like that should be expensive.  

i have a kindle touch and it updates to slow for a game like creeper word
which has enough fast paced action to render a kindle
infective in play ing cw as you are dead before the screen loads
it is that slow.

I don't think he was talking about the kindle-kindle.  He probably meant the kindle fire.  That would make sense, since it arose out of a discussion of android/iPhone ports, and the Fire is based on android.

But there is no storage of ammo or build packets that would require conversion to something if you had one in excess.

Keep in mind - we haven't seen the tech mechanics yet.

[Kingo]

What I thought (and meant originally) was that it would be useful if there are no available resource assets for conventional gathering of that resource.(i'm talking no ore deposits in a map maybe, or not enough/nearly no workable space to build reactors).
Last night I thought up a different way for distribution of packets: give the reactor an AI that produces certain packets by calculating from a number of factors which are desperately needed where (basically, it takes factors hidden in the code, and calculates that ammo packets will be needed more then build packets due to a wave of creeper surrounding the ridge in the near future.)
Basically, a priority control function. You can give it the option to burn every packet that comes through it's network connection (maybe not EVERY packet... needs a bit of work I can see) to get a more efficient distribution of resources.  
That might fit under a new unit, but I think it would be great for those who are casual and don't like or know how to micromanage efficiently. And maybe it will make fighting more complex enemies be well-balanced (think of CPRL towers...)

I figure my original post wasn't overly neat, so i'll summarize some ideas for it here:

- The reactor requires input of energy to power energy fields (so it doesn't destroy itself from the reactions)
- You can select what type of resource(s) to input and what resources you can get out of the reactor. I suppose applying different levels of efficiency (say, every two units of ammo packets makes 1 ore packet or 1 building packet, 1 anti-creeper packet makes 2 ore packets or 3 ammo packets, etc) would make for an interesting gameplay mechanic.
- All packet types (energy as well, at a high cost) can be used as the reactants. Energy must also be used to catalyze (start) and maintain certain reactions (to prevent the reactor from making games too easy/ being too overpowered)
-It can be moved, and it will take a moderate time to build (maybe as long as shields take to build as of the last blog update)

That's all I have for now.

[Ronini]

- The reactor requires input of energy to power energy fields (so it doesn't destroy itself from the reactions)
- You can select what type of resource(s) to input and what resources you can get out of the reactor. I suppose applying different levels of efficiency (say, every two units of ammo packets makes 1 ore packet or 1 building packet, 1 anti-creeper packet makes 2 ore packets or 3 ammo packets, etc) would make for an interesting gameplay mechanic.
- All packet types (energy as well, at a high cost) can be used as the reactants. Energy must also be used to catalyze (start) and maintain certain reactions (to prevent the reactor from making games too easy/ being too overpowered)
-It can be moved, and it will take a moderate time to build (maybe as long as shields take to build as of the last blog update)

That's all I have for now.

Questions for Kingo:
1. Do you think of a form of energy packets or should the required energy come directly out of the pool of stored energy (i.e. create demand/starvation)?
2. If the reactor's costs (setting up and running) are that high, why use it? Doesnt sound like it would generate a gain (apart from creating ore where there is none)

Question for all:
1. Is there a difference in any way other than colour between ammo and build packets? Does the creation of an ammo packet demand less energy than the creation of a build packet? I'm sure it does not in CW2 and dig packets are also the same.


I'm intrigued by the energy > ore/AC and ore/AC > energy conversions. Every other conversion does not make any sense. (Unless, of course, build packets do cost more than ammo packets. Let's say, creating one build packet were to cause the same energy demand as creating 3 ammo packets. Then a unit that can create a build packet from 2 ammo packets would provide a gain. But not if it used another ammo packets worth of energy to keep it running)

[Kingo]

I believe it should recieve energy packets, like shields and terps. The energy will be used to maintain/start a reaction, I guess the energy shield idea isn't so good after all.
However, I believe that taking a build packet and turning it into ammo packets will only cost as much as 1 build packet.
Probably the reactor would eat up different amounts of energy from the stored energy in different reactions
(To make a building packet from 2 ammo packets, it would take 1/2 as much energy as the other way around - something like that).
Just a question, does the creation of packets make the energy bar (on the CN) dip 1 pixel (or fractional number to divide the length of the bar)? Or does it have a more complex system (1 energy packet is 1 unit of energy, while reactors/collectors may produce 1.925, giving a net gain of .925, etc, or a certain number of energy units is required to make a packet type)

The reactor isn't designed to provide a net gain (except for the ore where there is none situation), but to turn certain packet types into other types and help with micromanaging. That's what I envision it as of now.
And (if the situation is/was ever feasable) turn packet types into energy (ore most probably).

[lurkily]

iQuestion for all:
1. Is there a difference in any way other than colour between ammo and build packets? Does the creation of an ammo packet demand less energy than the creation of a build packet? I'm sure it does not in CW2 and dig packets are also the same.

There is no practical difference between them except for where they're going.  They each signify 1 energy.  The fact that one is ammo and one is construction is meaningless, because they cannot be retasked from one project to another.  In effect, there is not really any such thing as a general-purpose ammo packet.  There is an ammo packet for Pulse Cannon # 12, and it has no more interchangability with ammo packets headed to other pulse cannons than it does with other build packets.  There is no process I know of in which it could be received by a different unit.

Guppies are a good example that a construction and build packet are not as dissimilar as some seem to think.

However, I believe that taking a build packet and turning it into ammo packets will only cost as much as 1 build packet.

Guppies do the reverse for free already.

Just a question, does the creation of packets make the energy bar (on the CN) dip 1 pixel (or fractional number to divide the length of the bar)? Or does it have a more complex system (1 energy packet is 1 unit of energy, while reactors/collectors may produce 1.925, giving a net gain of .925, etc, or a certain number of energy units is required to make a packet type)

1 packet is always 1 energy, as far as I know.

Last night I thought up a different way for distribution of packets: give the reactor an AI that produces certain packets by calculating from a number of factors which are desperately needed where (basically, it takes factors hidden in the code, and calculates that ammo packets will be needed more then build packets due to a wave of creeper surrounding the ridge in the near future.)

That sounds like something I've come across many times in my history of designing - for games, for game mods, for graphics . . . there are some things that are intriguing to design, but not particularly exciting to play with.  That strikes be as one of them.  

I think it would be much more effective to fold this unit into a CN.  Since the behavior can be confusing for a new and casual player, simply granting greater efficiency merely by having this unit exist would simplify it and make its purpose easier to understand just by viewing its operation.

I think, though, that it would be a lot simpler and straightforward for a casual player that doesn't read instructions, to just use tech upgrades to supply greater efficiency.  This process of building a unit that stores energy, then dispatches it with greater efficiency seems to be a very good way to

[Kingo]

But guppies are meant to transfer packets to outposts... not as a part of the network infrastructure.
And guppies only produce one ammo packet from one build packet, while Reactors can do more then that.
Reactors are more complex in the conversion process and involve more factors.
If this were to be implemented into a command node, then I think it should be an add-on that requires a good amount of building packets (rather then linking up with an upgrade in CW1) and require a constant drain on virtual, not physical energy (i.e. the bar now dips below a certain point and doesn't go up unless it is removed, or deactivated, since it is an add-on. Or maybe give the option to differentiate between virtual and physical energy (packets, in the case of physical energy).

[lurkily]

But guppies are meant to transfer packets to outposts... not as a part of the network infrastructure.
And guppies only produce one ammo packet from one build packet, while Reactors can do more then that.
Reactors are more complex in the conversion process and involve more factors.
If this were to be implemented into a command node, then I think it should be an add-on that requires a good amount of building packets (rather then linking up with an upgrade in CW1) and require a constant drain on virtual, not physical energy (i.e. the bar now dips below a certain point and doesn't go up unless it is removed, or deactivated, since it is an add-on. Or maybe give the option to differentiate between virtual and physical energy (packets, in the case of physical energy).

We need another name than reactors, to avoid confusion with the unit that already exists.

There are a few ground assumptions that often help me deal with casual players - They will not play tutorials, they will not read instructions, and they will not play a game that makes them do homework to play it properly.  This is not true of every casual player (and probably not typical of most players on the forums) but it's a good set of assumptions to operate on when you're trying to capture the casual market.

This is why I think this should be folded into an efficiency upgrade in the tech tree.  In the long run, it doesn't provide the player gameplay, and it doesn't ask them to make any choices.  It might be fun to watch it run for a while, but after that, it's just there for extra efficiency.  If that's all we're aiming for, we don't need that kind of complexity.

After all, that's what you're designing, right?  The conversion reactor can take in one packet, and produce 1.5 packets of a particular type, yes?  It's basically a very complex efficiency upgrade.  It changes some dynamics - for instance, it consumes the energy before (possibly long before) it dispatches the packet.  But at its' most simplified, it's about efficiency.

[Kingo]

I figure a new name will be "Resource Processing Unit" or something like that ;)

[tornado]

I ment a kindle touch

The kindle fire is available only as a import
From America s I don't have one

[Grauniad]

I ment a kindle touch

The kindle fire is available only as a import
From America s I don't have one

Hello Tornado.

While the Kindle Touch may support flash (I wouldn't know, I have a Kindle Fire), none of the CW1 or CW2 games will play very well on a tablet. We've never tested it and the interface is not suited to touch-based devices.

CW3 is developed in Unity and would require a special developer license (that isn't cheapp) to also develop for Android (which the Kindle Fire line is based on). We would not target any development for the e-ink devices at all. I doubt it is even possible.

Since we also don't consider the CW3 user interface suitable for touch at the moment, it is also unlikely that the CW3 game will make an appearance on an Android-based device.

[lurkily]

I ment a kindle touch

The kindle fire is available only as a import
From America s I don't have one

Yes, but MapMaster was the one who suggested the Kindle store, and I believe he meant the fire.  The kindle readers don't have the screen responsiveness to support a game of this nature.

[Kronokill]

I think the Creeper performs exactly like I would want it to all I would like to see added to the game are more weapons to use.
The only weapon I could think of at the moment would be a Creeper bait bomb you could build and then launch into the creeper.
It could lure the creeper towards it for a limited amount of time and then either die and let the creeper get back to creeping or it
could explode and kill all the creeper that piled up around it. Maybe you could set it to only lure creeper that reaches a certain
elevation to help keep it from overcoming a certain wall or defense.

[Kronokill]

One more suggestion I think could be cool would be when your in the map editor you could be able to create 2 versions of your map that would switch between each other every certain amount of time. With this you could make some walls disappear to let some creeper through and then reblock it off or lower terrain to let some creeper into zones that were safe before.