Terraform

[Lioncourt]

Or, instead of a dirt maker, you can have a dirt mover.  Move a chunk from one spot to place in another maybe?

[mthw2vc]

Part of the fun and challenge in the game is to know when to and when not to remove a piece of terrain.

Of course it would only apply to maps of which their own author has enabled this option.

Apart from that keep in mind that these reactors would now cost 100% more (5 for the reactor and 5 for the shield), so that's an expensive trade-off. In combination with the optional build limit I can see very interesting maps being designed with this feature, especially because shields will remain vulnerable to the creeper.

It could be an option in the editor, but then we back to the overcomplicated editor, and it just gets messy...

Just 1 checkbox: allow building on shields yes/no (default = no).

I have several problems with this statement. For one thing, you normally need to dig some terrain (a minimum of 3 packets). That is 8 energy to build a reactor (7 with the 20% reduced costs upgrade).With shields, it is 10 (8 with the 20% reduced costs upgrade), only a 25% (~14% with the 20% reduced building costs upgrade) increase in price. You have seen yourself in the beta that modifying reactor prices does little to affect good gameplay except in the most extreme of cases. Knowing when to fight for and when to abandon additional building space is a serious element of the game that is quashed by this.

[UpperKEES]

For one thing, you normally need to dig some terrain (a minimum of 3 packets). That is 8 energy to build a reactor (7 with the 20% reduced costs upgrade).With shields, it is 10 (8 with the 20% reduced costs upgrade), only a 25% (~14% with the 20% reduced building costs upgrade) increase in price. You have seen yourself in the beta that modifying reactor prices does little to affect good gameplay except in the most extreme of cases. Knowing when to fight for and when to abandon additional building space is a serious element of the game that is quashed by this.

- You are already digging towards to Creeper, so not all digging is just to build reactors. I always try to use these tunnels for my reactors, because if you need to dig for them their pay-back time goes from 33.3 to 53.3 seconds.

- For the -20% building costs you need 12 technytes, so you'd need quite a few tech domes at the start of the game if you want to use them to build reactors. Often you'll generate energy first and use that upgrade to build more expensive units. Building the domes first would slow down your economy a lot (although there will be a break-even point when you need lots of energy).

- But most important, and I repeat: it should be an option determined by the map maker! If he/she enables this option there will probably be a good reason to do so. Maybe all terrain is decayable and threatened by the Creeper, or maybe there's no terrain to build on at all! ;) It would just add a new element to map making and gameplay without influencing existing maps or customs maps without this option enabled.

[mthw2vc]

- You are already digging towards to Creeper, so not all digging is just to build reactors. I always try to use these tunnels for my reactors, because if you need to dig for them their pay-back time goes from 33.3 to 53.3 seconds.

- For the -20% building costs you need 12 technytes, so you'd need quite a few tech domes at the start of the game if you want to use them to build reactors. Often you'll generate energy first and use that upgrade to build more expensive units. Building the domes first would slow down your economy a lot (although there will be a break-even point when you need lots of energy).

- But most important, and I repeat: it should be an option determined by the map maker! If he/she enables this option there will probably be a good reason to do so. Maybe all terrain is decayable and threatened by the Creeper, or maybe there's no terrain to build on at all! ;) It would just add a new element to map making and gameplay without influencing existing maps or customs maps without this option enabled.

1. If there is such a good reason for turning it on, as you say yourself, generally speaking, you aren't going to be digging your way conveniently to the creeper.

2. You have seen yourself how easy it is to hoard technytes. In any of the situations where I might want to use the option, hoarding technytes becomes useful.

3. That just goes back to the matter that it makes the editor that much more complicated. One more checkbox, one more checkbox, when does it end? The editor already has a very large number of options in it ready-to use. Then comes the fact that if it were an option in the editor, the game needs to be able to support both options, there needs to be a concise way of showing all of these "lovely" options to the player when opening, or downloading a map so they aren't walking in blind. What's that? They can just open it in the editor? That brings us once more to the fact that the editor is already jam-packed with features, some of which are used in some maps, and some are not. Opening every map I download in the editor to look for any tricks is nothing short of a hassle. Then comes the matter that while you might use this feature correctly, another mapmaker will not and you wind up with many otherwise good maps ruined by the fact that their authors fail to understand the impact some of these checkboxes have on the game.

[UpperKEES]

1. Depends. You could for instance require a beacon to be build in an inaccessible place (maybe even after applying beacon range upgrades). Of course most maps with this feature enabled probably won't have much space to dig, like I explained in my previous post.

2. I have never ever hoarded technytes when I wasn't already generating loads of energy. It just doesn't pay off; energy will always be the most important resource and you know that.

3. Sure there will be many options, but we shouldn't assume everyone is plain stupid here. MS Word has hundreds of more options than the map editor will ever have, but still everyone is able to use it (although most of us hardly use 20% of all features for most documents). It is much more likely that other functionality (like fields) will be used in an unintended way, so that's for everyone to learn and experiment with. Many games with map editors are much more complex (allowing for scripts and such) and people seem to love it! Try to think in opportunities instead of problems. :)

[thepenguin]

It could be an option in the editor, but then we back to the overcomplicated editor, and it just gets messy...

Just 1 checkbox: allow building on shields yes/no (default = no).

I agree with kees here, but also, as a sidenote, I find it strange that you are calling the editor too complicated, when you have never seen or used it (one could arguably say that these forums are too complicated, because there are options that not everyone understands; so too complicated is relative to how much the user can understand)

[mthw2vc]

1. Depends. You could for instance require a beacon to be build in an inaccessible place (maybe even after applying beacon range upgrades). Of course most maps with this feature enabled probably won't have much space to dig, like I explained in my previous post.

This is exactly my point, but perhaps you do not understand it in the way I do. It is up to the mapmaker to craft a reasonable challenge for the player. While the available range of such maps is reduced by not having this feature, the same can be said of every feature ever considered for the gamne that did not make the cut.

2. I have never ever hoarded technytes when I wasn't already generating loads of energy. It just doesn't pay off; energy will always be the most important resource and you know that.

Now you're just outright lying to me! Recall such maps as 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974, where doing this is a requirement to survive.

3. Sure there will be many options, but we shouldn't assume everyone is plain stupid here. MS Word has hundreds of more options than the map editor will ever have, but still everyone is able to use it (although most of us hardly use 20% of all features for most documents). It is much more likely that other functionality (like fields) will be used in an unintended way, so that's for everyone to learn and experiment with. Many games with map editors are much more complex (allowing for scripts and such) and people seem to love it! Try to think in opportunities instead of problems. :)

Scripting requires knowledge of the way in which the scripts work. Clicking a single checkbox in an editor already overloaded with features does not. Making a document requires the use of each of these features in such a way that the point can be gotten across. Noone will want to read them if I do this with every other word. Making a custom map does not.

[UpperKEES]

This is exactly my point, but perhaps you do not understand it in the way I do. It is up to the mapmaker to craft a reasonable challenge for the player. While the available range of such maps is reduced by not having this feature, the same can be said of every feature ever considered for the gamne that did not make the cut.

Virgil said some features will be added later on, so I don't see why that wouldn't apply to this one, especially because it's optional.

Now you're just outright lying to me! Recall such maps as 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974, where doing this is a requirement to survive.

Sure there are some maps that require some technytes as early as possible, but I'm sure you know exactly what I mean: when you have the choice between building your reactors first, or build your tech domes first, the latter won't ever pay off. This is just because of the plain fact that your tech domes will be finished faster when you have more energy to build them (and build more of them). Please let me know when you like to see a chart that demonstrates this for you.

Scripting requires knowledge of the way in which the scripts work. Clicking a single checkbox in an editor already overloaded with features does not. Making a document requires the use of each of these features in such a way that the point can be gotten across. Noone will want to read them if I do this with every other word. Making a custom map does not.

Scripting is just an example of the fact that people creating maps don't mind spending some time to make something nice and unique of it. The World of Warcraft editor for instance features many many options and I don't believe players complain that it offers too many possibilities.

You're not getting my point regarding MS Word: some people use some features, other people use other features. MS Word satisfies people who just want to write plain text as well as people who embed complex objects in their documents. When the application is designed well (grouping features logically on tabs and/or in menu's) they don't bite each other. Up to now Virgil has shown that he's a master in keeping the user interface intuitive, so I don't see why this wouldn't be the case for the CW2 map editor.

[Grauniad]

It could be an option in the editor, but then we back to the overcomplicated editor, and it just gets messy...

Just 1 checkbox: allow building on shields yes/no (default = no).

That exactly is *not* it. The game now has to check the map editor settings, and then have two code paths - one path for building on shields and another for not building on shields.  And then a few more complexities and one or two errors that creep in and a refresh of the code to correct the error and people  coming to the forum to complain that their game is not working and we having to tell them to update and they saying they can't find their original version to patch and...

[UpperKEES]

Duh! I was of course talking about the user interface of the editor. It would be a miracle if the game would automatically change behaviour because of a check box, hahaha! :D By the way: the game wouldn't have to check for a map editor setting, as you don't need the editor to play a map; it would just be stored in the map file.

Why so negative? Any change can potentially introduce a bug, but that's what beta testing is for. :)

[Ebon Heart]

I don't think having the option to cause no limitations on energy would be a problem, day 20 just proves that even with infinite or near infinite energy, a level can still be a pain in the butt.

[thepenguin]

Duh! I was of course talking about the user interface of the editor. It would be a miracle if the game would automatically change behaviour because of a check box, hahaha! :D By the way: the game wouldn't have to check for a map editor setting, as you don't need the editor to play a map; it would just be stored in the map file.

Why so negative? Any change can potentially introduce a bug, but that's what beta testing is for. :)

;), an infinite energy / ore checkbox could be cool too

[UpperKEES]

I don't think having the option to cause no limitations on energy would be a problem, day 20 just proves that even with infinite or near infinite energy, a level can still be a pain in the butt.

an infinite energy / ore checkbox could be cool too

Sure, every weapon could have zero cost to build as well. :P It will make the game really interesting....

But ehm, what does it have to do with 'terraforming'?

[Ebon Heart]

If you could terraform at will, you could have near infinite energy on most levels.

[UpperKEES]

If you could terraform at will, you could have near infinite energy on most levels.

Please read the entire topic before posting useless comments.