[Suggestion] PLEASE make these basic yet critical improvements (v1.01)

[tanelorn]

I really LOVE this game, as with all the previous creeper world titles. I am ashamed to say that I wasn't paying attention to KC here so this title snuck up on me but I purchased it immediately upon learning about it. I really wish I had been part of the testing phase.

I think there are some really important features not present in the initial release that really need to be there. Here is my list:

• Absolutely critical, as CW has always been a resource management game, we desparately need to see our ENERGY DRAIN as well as our energy gathering values. I was amazed to not see this in the GUI.


• We are lacking critical ship data. On mouseover or selection (preferably mouseover) we should see energy stores, energy drain, %damage, shield %, and special info depending on the modules on the ship.


• On mouseover in the ship build menu we should see some info on the ship such as energy cost, firepower rating, build time with current energy supply, etc.


• The M key for fine rotation should be moved closer to the WASD area for convienence. Same for the pause button.


• There should be an overall cleanup of the GUI on the top and the bottom areas, as there is info there of minimal importance while the above important info is lacking.


• In the ship editor, we really need mouseover descriptions of the modules, and also some ship stats like move speed, energy consumption / battery life if all guns are firing, etc.

Those are my big "please implement ASAP" feature requests. Next I have a few gameplay suggestions:

1. Currently it seems that the levels are impossible to lose so long as you don't get overwhelmed in the first 30 seconds. It may be incredibly frustrating to gain ground if you're a poor player, but typically you are at least at stalemate very early in the game. In previous titles, if you didn't plan properly you WOULD be overtaken by the creep later in the game. I would prefer the latter approach. Currently most levels seem like more of a grind and less of a strategy game.

2. Currently the energy mines are (or seem to be) able to dispense energy with no restriction other than your maximum energy production. This means that a single energy mine is able to dump your entire production in one place, making all your other mine locations meaningless for production. The game would have a much better energy supply / construction dynamic if there was a limit to how fast an energy mine can dispense energy packets to the surrounding area. A specific example would be that you would have to construct ships in the rear locations so that your fleet on the front line gets all of their mine's limited energy for firepower. A second example would be if you have a large fleet whose energy needs exceeds what a single mine can provide, so you use tankers to ship extra energy in from other mines. A third example would be constructing large ships in an overlap between two mines to double the build rate, which doesn't happen in the current game because there's no limit.

3. I would like a way to designate a location for priority firing. This is especially important for long range fire or if you want to clear a  specific area so a ship can move through. For enemy dopples or ships, it would be great if we could click on them for focus fire.

4. In sandbox mode, I would really appreciate a way to save the ship list as a preset. Meaning, the ship slots you populate for building ships during the game.

Another final thought: In most RTS you have units you can build but no limit to the amount that you build. It's the cost itself and possibly the energy cost to maintain them that is the limit. You went with predetermined ship slots instead. I wonder what the game would be like if you could build as many of a unit as you could afford, but some other mechanic was present to keep the game fair and balanced.

Thanks for making yet another great CW title. I hope you intend to improve upon the 1.01 version in the near future.

[Relli]

Allow me to tackle those that I can actually do anything about. For instance...
The fine rotation hotkey as well as the pause button are both configurable in the options menu. Place them wherever you like.
I will once again project my support for more information in-game about the game, in any way it is deemed worth adding.
Levels being too simple is an issue that can be fixed with specific Exchange games. Look for the players that have made intentionally difficult maps. Or if nothing suits your style, consider perhaps making one of your own. If you want a more strategic approach to an existing level or the story missions, aim for the high score boards. Finish as fast as you possibly can. There's a lot of fine-tuning to be done there.

And now for the big one...
Energy Mines possess a limit already. It cannot send more than 1 energy per tick to any specific ship. However there's no hard cap to how much energy a single mine can dish out, which I believe is what you're getting at. I guess I don't have much more to say other than that I don't like the idea of restricting energy mines in that way. It creates a strategic element that feels more obnoxious than enjoyable, especially if that change came without the much-needed info on how the new system works.

[GoodMorning]

Largely well-thought-out ideas.

Mines could have had that, but now that the game is released, it's not worthwhile or necessarily desirable. We might be able to PRPL something, but I doubt it.

[Sorrontis]

Hello Tanelorn, a lot of what you talk about in your bullets are currently in the works, or were discussed.

• Absolutely critical, as CW has always been a resource management game, we desparately need to see our ENERGY DRAIN as well as our energy gathering values. I was amazed to not see this in the GUI.


• We are lacking critical ship data. On mouseover or selection (preferably mouseover) we should see energy stores, energy drain, %damage, shield %, and special info depending on the modules on the ship.


• On mouseover in the ship build menu we should see some info on the ship such as energy cost, firepower rating, build time with current energy supply, etc.


• The M key for fine rotation should be moved closer to the WASD area for convienence. Same for the pause button.


• There should be an overall cleanup of the GUI on the top and the bottom areas, as there is info there of minimal importance while the above important info is lacking.


• In the ship editor, we really need mouseover descriptions of the modules, and also some ship stats like move speed, energy consumption / battery life if all guns are firing, etc.

1) The energy drain has been discussed several times. From what I gather, there is some disagreement on how to best do it, so it was left out. Karsten and Virgil can clarify more.

2) & 3) & 6) These are all in the process of being applied to the game. It might take a little time, since V first has to do all the bug fixes.

4) The biggest thing I can say though is about the "M" key. It's the default because it used for "M"icro rotation. You can, by going to the settings, change it to what ever you want.

The last point 5). Yes, that one is quite a good point. I too find the top GUI a little lacking, or minimalist. I generally don't pay attention to it.

Those are my big "please implement ASAP" feature requests. Next I have a few gameplay suggestions:

1. Currently it seems that the levels are impossible to lose so long as you don't get overwhelmed in the first 30 seconds. It may be incredibly frustrating to gain ground if you're a poor player, but typically you are at least at stalemate very early in the game. In previous titles, if you didn't plan properly you WOULD be overtaken by the creep later in the game. I would prefer the latter approach. Currently most levels seem like more of a grind and less of a strategy game.

2. Currently the energy mines are (or seem to be) able to dispense energy with no restriction other than your maximum energy production. This means that a single energy mine is able to dump your entire production in one place, making all your other mine locations meaningless for production. The game would have a much better energy supply / construction dynamic if there was a limit to how fast an energy mine can dispense energy packets to the surrounding area. A specific example would be that you would have to construct ships in the rear locations so that your fleet on the front line gets all of their mine's limited energy for firepower. A second example would be if you have a large fleet whose energy needs exceeds what a single mine can provide, so you use tankers to ship extra energy in from other mines. A third example would be constructing large ships in an overlap between two mines to double the build rate, which doesn't happen in the current game because there's no limit.

3. I would like a way to designate a location for priority firing. This is especially important for long range fire or if you want to clear a  specific area so a ship can move through. For enemy dopples or ships, it would be great if we could click on them for focus fire.

4. In sandbox mode, I would really appreciate a way to save the ship list as a preset. Meaning, the ship slots you populate for building ships during the game.

For point 1). That's because the hardest maps aren't out yet. A lot of people have plans for PRPL, but it's just not ready yet. Give it time.
For point 3). Yes. Oh god yes! Especially with the lathes!

[GoodMorning]

It is also worth noting that Virgil will be implementing custom modules for ships, and that the UI cleanup has to wait on that, because the two will interface...

[PhailRaptor]

1. Currently it seems that the levels are impossible to lose so long as you don't get overwhelmed in the first 30 seconds. It may be incredibly frustrating to gain ground if you're a poor player, but typically you are at least at stalemate very early in the game. In previous titles, if you didn't plan properly you WOULD be overtaken by the creep later in the game. I would prefer the latter approach. Currently most levels seem like more of a grind and less of a strategy game.

Strange.  That is not at all how I remember CW3.

Unless I'm the only one that discovered the terribly inefficient but almost infallible strategy of terraforming to level 10 from a corner outward with a perfectly square energy grid and a wall of Cannons and Mortars mercilessly pounding the Creeper while Berthas thin out the truly massive accumulations in the distance?

[tanelorn]

Thanks devs for replying so quickly and thoroughly!!!

There are a variety of ways to display power usage, are you just unsure of how to do it graphically or codewise? Because there are a large number of RTS games that incorporate such feedback, Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander being the staples. But even the previous creeper world games did this.

I do understand that if there's no code tracking power drain it could be a very rough time retrofitting such code. Although it may be easier than it seems as all energy is dispensed exclusively from the energy mines. Where it goes after that is irrelevant. So perhaps just having each owned energy mine report it's dispensation of energy would give an accurate summery of energy drain?

[GoodMorning]

PhailRaptor, I believe that what is meant is that in CW3 the Creeper can prevent you from building on any part of the map, whereas you can often retry a PF map as many times as required.

tanelorn, while I agree on the power UI, I am told that it has been examined, a lot. I would like to see the return of the "deficit" from CW, because not being able to estimate how far the economy is "in the red" makes it difficult to time additional construction. However, PF is often easier to manage the optional power use of, because moving ships is faster and easier than moving the CW front line. However, it is ultimately up to Virgil.

[Relli]

Thanks devs for replying so quickly and thoroughly!!!

No one who has yet responded in this topic is a developer of the game. Though there are several developers of player-made Exchange maps. The names to watch for are VirgilW (obviously) and Karsten75.

[knucracker]

I've been knocked off the internet for 3 days (thanks to the hurricane and the always awesome and highly communicative timer warner cable)...
But let me respond to just one topic.... energy display.

During development I actually tried a range of energy displays.  Things similar to CW3 or total annihilation, etc.  I even used the dashboard display from a hybrid car as a model at one point.  So yeah, I can show information is range of different ways and it can look nice.  Useful is another problem...

Take a look at a regular old mission.  Mission 8-12 in the story for instance.  Watch the amount of green packets on the screen.  They represent the amount of energy demand (so long as you have sufficient energy of course).  During a mission start you often do (because of energy pods).  Energy demand is highly irregular.  When a ship is building the CM, it needs 2 pps.  When it is building the hull it will demand energy as fast as it can, based on what it is building.  That demand is based on the shape of the hull.  Mix in multiple ships at multiple stages of build/repair plus weapons fire and you get energy consumption that looks like an earth quake on a richter scale.

Right now you can of course tell if you have energy pod energy and you can look at the energy storage and tell if it is full.  If you have more than enough energy production for most sustained operations you know that.  If your energy store is empty, though, you don't know by 'how much' you are under producing.  The challenge is showing that in a way that has any meaning or is actionable. 

There are also some technical concerns that make calculating a deficit challenging.  Ships, for instance, don't queue up requests for packets.  They ask for a packet when they need one.  Only once it is dispatched will they ask for another one.  So if you have a production of 1 and have 24 carriers all building hull at the same time the deficit (looking just at packet requests) appears to be around 24.  Of course knowing what the near future demand is would be more useful in that case.

Anyway, just some thoughts for consideration.  I have some ideas and will be trying some of them out very soon.

[tanelorn]

mods, I can't delete this post, plz delete.

[tanelorn]

But let me respond to just one topic.... energy display.
...
Anyway, just some thoughts for consideration.  I have some ideas and will be trying some of them out very soon.

Thanks for replying Virgil. I have an idea for handling this, and it references my original post.

I get it that you have highly variable consumption rates especially with ship building. My suggestion is twofold:

1. Eliminate the variable rates for different modules, and just rely on each module having a set number of resource points it requires. That is enough to balance the cost of a module with build time. Same for hull for large vs. small ships. So, all ships build at the same rate, and the total construction cost determines when the job is done (affected by your energy production)

2. This only works if you implement my throttle on energy mine resource dispensation. Currently energy mines have no limit on the amount of energy they can dispense. If you set a throttle, you do many things, all of them good in my opinion:
2a. You enhance the strategic / planning component because you can't rely on a single location to do everything at once. To ensure the front line ships get the energy they need you may need to build ships at other locations for example.
2b. You make it advantageous to build / defend where two energy mine radii overlap.
2c. You add greater utility to tankers because now they can supply additional energy to a fleet that is fully consuming the output of their local energy mine by bringing energy from other EMs.

Add these 2 changes together and you get a deeper experience and a more practical system for tracking energy consumption.

You could further develop energy dispensation by adding a slider or selector to set priorities for energy sending. By default all requests are treated equal, but you can manipulate a priority to ship resupply or building. Again with the current system there's no limit but if you incorporate a throttle then you can implement this.

[GoodMorning]

I would be happy with the simpler form:
Packets requested in last 3sec, averaged to be per second (Green).
Requests refused in last 3sec, also averaged (Red, not shown if all requests are filled).

In essence, anything is better than nothing. The form above will produce use/deficit stats in the same form as production stats.

[tanelorn]

I would be happy with the simpler form:
Packets requested in last 3sec, averaged to be per second (Green).
Requests refused in last 3sec, also averaged (Red, not shown if all requests are filled).

In essence, anything is better than nothing. The form above will produce use/deficit stats in the same form as production stats.

The issue with requested / denied packets is that every little thing is requesting packets, so does that mean you have to add reporting code to each of them for this to work? The best place for the tracking would be at the energy mines, which would mean tracking energy dispensed.

[GoodMorning]

When the global energy store is checked to see if there is power to fill a request, the power-logging can be done.

I do not agree with the mechanical change you refer to (at least, not since the release is past and maps have been balanced otherwise). Therefore, this is the most efficient place to track it.

If the requests are queued, rather than filled/denied immediately, then this not work to measure deficit. That structure could allow deficit to be partially measured by queue length and the time a request has spent in the queue.

Measuring the number of power-hungry processes going on could help, but with custom modules thrown in, it becomes endlessly complicated.