Suggestions for CW-next

[CJY101]

1、Ore Deposit show different
Editor       Game
1-99         1-49
100-199    50-99
200-299    100-149
300-399    150-199
400-499    200-249
500-599    250-299
600-699    300-349
700-799    350-399
800-899    400-449
900-9999   450-9999

why!?

2、Editor
2-1.Blaster lack of mode selection.
2-2.Unit Setting
All weapons(Exp) lack of connect mode selection.

3、Game
Item:Gateway
Health:1/1
Phantoms:1
Drone:10   ←can add this?

[Amram]

Forum-to-game link system for Code maps and custom maps.  Something similar in scope to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed2k_URI_scheme .  That is a wiki page on the ED2K linking scheme, in which a simple hyperlink is constructed in such a way as to tell the browser it needs to hand this to an external program, like they can do with Mailto: and email clients.  By having a button on the code map and custom map screens to tell the client to put such a link in the clipboard, a player then need only paste it to the forum, and any who click on on it will have CW opened for them(optional?), and taken directly to the screen immediately prior to launching the mission.

For example code missions would leave you at the selection page, but would have pre-loaded the string, and parameters for you.  no more writing it down before opening CW, or tabbing back and forth to get it right if you don't have multiple monitors, or at least enough resolution for CW to be open, and not block the posted map name/settings.

[kevinz000]

well maybe a little more ways to control weapons?
such as blasters:able to make blasters target dense or thin creeper. useful after i max out range in cw2 and would be useful in cw3 ^.^
launchers AND blasters...ALL WEAPONS:able to select a region to prioritize, not just blaster blindly shooting closest creeper or launchers shooting densest creeper but letting other thinner but more dangerous creeper through.
if possible able to select priority, or just outright able to select making launchers only shoot a certain place.
those thing would be really cool.

[mthw2vc]

Assuming CW3's unit balance to be fairly similar to CW1's, realize that in the vast majority of scenarios, the only reason to use a mortar instead of a blaster is the mortar's usually superior targeting scheme.

EDIT: Looking at which thread this is in, I think perhaps it would have been better posted elsewhere.

[mpete]

In the editor and or in the game, the ability to set the drone (or whatever replaces them) path value of a spot, like how ac is 3 times a normal cell in cw2.

[bobthebike]

A cursor would be useful, personaly I regularly loose sight of the windows cursor when playing and have to move the mouse about rapidly to " find " it.

Thanks

BoB

[lurkily]

In the editor and or in the game, the ability to set the drone (or whatever replaces them) path value of a spot, like how ac is 3 times a normal cell in cw2.

I like this.  It may, without careful use, lead to nonsensical behavior, but I can see some very interesting results arising from this.

[4xC]

I would suggest that certain units that already exist be given a priority setting that can do things like these:

Cannons: Kill creeper when it damages nearby friendly units, Kill nearby creeper only

Mortars: Kill creeper that is near, then deep, Kill creeper that is deep, then near

Particle Beams: Kill strong spores, Kill weak spores

[4xC]

In CW1, collectors network lines at maximum range that allowed, mathematically speaking, 2 and a half units to to fit inbetween them.

If the collectors could allow about 3 units inbetween them without any halves of space left over and still connect to a collector that is as far away from the first collector as possible before the connection would break, I think it would save a lot of economic stress.

[lurkily]

I would suggest that certain units that already exist be given a priority setting that can do things like these:

Cannons: Kill creeper when it damages nearby friendly units, Kill nearby creeper only

Mortars: Kill creeper that is near, then deep, Kill creeper that is deep, then near

Particle Beams: Kill strong spores, Kill weak spores

Why should mortars ever fire on closer first?  They can't be effective in that role.  Likewise, blasters, not being more effective on deep creeper, have no reason to focus there.  They're best working in a synergy, blaster's rapid-fire working close up, and mortars going to work depleting dense buildups that would encroach on the blaster while it works.  The blaster protects the mortar, and the mortar protects the blasters by using their strengths.  Switching their roles would only utilize  their weaknesses.

As for collectors, a diamond grid allows minimum collector range overlap, and maximum use of real estate.  Other patterns work, as well, including stripes that are positioned one stripe apart from connection range, linked at the end of the stripe.  That lets you pack units very tightly between rows, but not between collectors on a row.

Since real estate can be mitigated with intelligent design, I think we would lose something by reducing the rewards gained by players for intelligent use.

[4xC]

I would suggest that certain units that already exist be given a priority setting that can do things like these:

Cannons: Kill creeper when it damages nearby friendly units, Kill nearby creeper only

Mortars: Kill creeper that is near, then deep, Kill creeper that is deep, then near

Particle Beams: Kill strong spores, Kill weak spores

Why should mortars ever fire on closer first?  They can't be effective in that role.  Likewise, blasters, not being more effective on deep creeper, have no reason to focus there.  They're best working in a synergy, blaster's rapid-fire working close up, and mortars going to work depleting dense buildups that would encroach on the blaster while it works.  The blaster protects the mortar, and the mortar protects the blasters by using their strengths.  Switching their roles would only utilize  their weaknesses.

As for collectors, a diamond grid allows minimum collector range overlap, and maximum use of real estate.  Other patterns work, as well, including stripes that are positioned one stripe apart from connection range, linked at the end of the stripe.  That lets you pack units very tightly between rows, but not between collectors on a row.

Since real estate can be mitigated with intelligent design, I think we would lose something by reducing the rewards gained by players for intelligent use.

Point there. I was just thinking about something I read on the KC site about some issues with prioritizing targets with pulse cannons and mortars. I kind of forget what the point was, but the idea was something that had resulted from those posts.

And as for collectors, do you mean they are SUPPOSED to have enough space between them when they are connected to allow at least 2 units and a half of a unit inbetween them like in CW1? Or does "not between collectors in a row" mean that units can no longer be placed between connected collectors?

No complaints if door #1. If door #2, where did that come from? And yeah, I see what you mean about rewarding players for intelligent use. Multiple options and approaches do tend to make things like CW even better.

[lurkily]

And as for collectors, do you mean they are SUPPOSED to have enough space between them when they are connected to allow at least 2 units and a half of a unit inbetween them like in CW1? Or does "not between collectors in a row" mean that units can no longer be placed between connected collectors?

I don't  know what the reasoning between fitting less than three full units between connectors is - but now that it works that way, I think in 'perfecting' the distance we would actually lose strategic depth.

What I meant is that if you make one vertical column of collectors, you can stretch rows out from that.  Those rows can be wider appart, as long as they connect to that one column.  That way you can pack two full, solid rows of units between the rows, and two between each relay.  However, you still get a bit of empty space between the relays on those rows.

If you use the diamond pattern, which is more time-consuming to lay out, true, you get some coverage gaps, but you can pack units between them 100% solid.

[4xC]

I don't  know what the reasoning between fitting less than three full units between connectors is - but now that it works that way, I think in 'perfecting' the distance we would actually lose strategic depth.

What I meant is that if you make one vertical column of collectors, you can stretch rows out from that.  Those rows can be wider appart, as long as they connect to that one column.  That way you can pack two full, solid rows of units between the rows, and two between each relay.  However, you still get a bit of empty space between the relays on those rows.

If you use the diamond pattern, which is more time-consuming to lay out, true, you get some coverage gaps, but you can pack units between them 100% solid.

I tried to follow up on what you said, Lurkily, but I think it would help if you could post a visual design of what you are talking about.

Let me see if I can at least try to get this straight: If you build a column of collectors, there can be more distance between the collectors in each row. Why would there be relays in the collector group? And how far do collectors have to be from each other before part of the ground inbetween starts becomming not green?

And my reasoning about less than 3 units fitting inbetween collectors is derived from CW1. Collectors could have room inbetween them for 2.5 units before they would be too far to connect to each other.

And until you mentioned the potential loss of strategic depth, I wondered for a while if the collectors in CW1 were designed to have a maximun connection distance of 2.5 units on purpose. That response confirmed my suspicion. And I can accept it if it means maintaining strategic depth.

[lurkily]

Here's a picture of it.  This lets you fit two solid rows of units between collectors.  My use of the word relays was me mispeaking.

If you stagger the collectors in these rows, you can eliminate coverage gaps, or alternately, space them a little wider, and live with the gaps. ( Which can help you expand your energy production faster, early.). A diamond grid offers the absolute minimum overlap between collector coverages, building your resource base fast, and the most dense unit packing possible, but has larger coverage gaps.

EDIT: Links broken.  Getting new screenshots now.

[4xC]

Here's a picture of it from CW3 alpha.  This lets you fit two solid rows of units between collectors.  My use of the word relays was me mispeaking.

If you stagger the collectors in these rows, you can eliminate coverage gaps, or alternately, space them a little wider, and live with the gaps. ( Which can help you expand your energy production faster, early.). A diamond grid offers the absolute minimum overlap between collector coverages, building your resource base fast, and the most dense unit packing possible, but has larger coverage gaps.

Well, well, well, if it's not the picture that apparently does NOT want me to see it. When I clicked on the link you had, the page said: "An Error Has Occured, The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you."

Otherwise, I believe I get the basic point of what you are saying: either tolerate with the gaps, or tolerate the lack of space.

I only hope that my attatchment to thoroughness and almost absolute clarity isn't hassling anyone here because I am beginning to think it is. One more thing, it seems to me that the most careful approach to discussions like this are the ones where someone (meaning me) has to be rather self-degrading to some degree to prevent boasting statements, self-rightousness, and vain feelings from becoming part of that someone's reputation.