Suggestions for CW-next

[lurkily]

When I get home, I'll re-upload images of both schemes.

[4xC]

When I get home, I'll re-upload images of both schemes.

WOW! That reply came faster than I expected. Much obliged, Lurkily. That is what makes me suprised that so few of us forum posters like you and me have met in person.

Sometimes though, topics of ongoing things and issues make it slightly regrettable that it would not be a safe bet for people on these forums to see each other face to face to resolve them. But I don't blame anyone or anything. There is no way to meet face to face unless one works for KC as an official employee, right?

I am not trying to arrange a face to face meeting with anyone here; I just thought it was somewhat regrettable that most of us, as I doubt, will ever know each other in person. Any live meeting I for one DO take part in with any of you will be mutually agreed upon and most likely initiated not by me.

[lurkily]

Here.  This are some of my favored CW1 patterns which will probably be just as viable in CW3 final.  The bottom two rows are two spaces too far apart to link.  This is more than enough room for two solid rows of units, and it lets you cover more area with fewer collectors.

The row above that is three spaces too far to link - this lets you pack three rows of units between rows of collectors, but gives you imperfect coverage.

At the top, is a diamond pattern that I mentioned before.  It's a pain to set up, but when you can use it, it provides very good (though imperfect) coverage, and absolutely minimizes the overlap between the collection zones of each collector.  That means when you're initially building, you're putting more green on the map with each collector you build than if you built in horizontal or vertical rows, which in turn means you can eke out a slightly faster start.

It also means you can lay down maximum unit density on the map - you can pack units and collectors 100% solid, maximizing limited real estate.  It is a pain to build, though, and rough terrain messes it up easily.

As for meetings . . . I actually do not know if KC has any on-site staff beyond V.  No, I haven't met with anybody here on the forums.  Over at another company, where I'm more deeply involved with ongoing development of new content, I've met some people I work with, but video-chat meetings are much more common and convenient.

Lastly, my response was quick because I tend to check in during downtime at work.  When it's busy, time flies.  When it's not . . . well, let's just say you better have a task to occupy you.

[4xC]

I see. So that is what you were describingearlier. Impressive image.

So basically, the most econimically productive setup is the diamond one. Okay, I get it now. :)

By the way, if any of my responses that initially may close the matter, like this one is I presume, are what forum-veterans would probaly call "redundant", it is only because I am more comfortable if I visibly confirm that I am on the same page as you and the others.

[lurkily]

So basically, the most econimically productive setup is the diamond one.

Not really.  It DOES leave some gaps.  A square grid, or rows will give you better production at the end of the day. 

Diamonds just provide faster initial production because overlap between node coverage is minimized.  Each node you build gives you slightly better coverage, particularly if you start building in single straight lines to start off with.  That will do even more to avoid overlap in collection radii.

It isn't a big difference in your final production, but your initial setup will start up faster this way, and that can be very, very important.

[Nemoricus]

So basically, the most econimically productive setup is the diamond one.

Not really.  It DOES leave some gaps.  A square grid, or rows will give you better production at the end of the day. 

Not necessarily....

[4xC]

So basically, the most econimically productive setup is the diamond one.

Not really.  It DOES leave some gaps.  A square grid, or rows will give you better production at the end of the day.  

Not necessarily....

Wow. Large thread that this links to. I never expected maximum energy production to involve so many math corrections or retrials.

Anyways, I am now thinking that to enhance the AC input of CW3, the mortars ought to have a priority setting where they can either launch bombs, or AC payloads like the bombers. Obviously, the strafers and bombers are the pulse cannons and mortars of the sky and the mortars could do something like the same thing the bomber do if they could launch AC as a chossable alternative.

[Polatrite]

Short-term Energy Graph - It would be great to have a small graph in the status area that shows energy consumption vs production over the last 10~ seconds or so. It would be a lot more efficient at-a-glance information than the current number schema. If this proves too difficult, a small moving average filter (3-5 seconds) on the consumption value might be really nice.

Hover to See Packet Path - If you could hover over a building to see the optimal packet path to that building it would be really nice for optimizing, especially now that relays could be "packet highways".

I had a few more but I'm at work and can't remember now. :)

[allu]

Well that packet path would be intresting and some in cases even usefull. Nice little feature if V considers easy/necessary enought to implement.

[4xC]

What I have in mind in regards to that is around the control panel on the play screen, all Command Nodes are symbolized on the panel and the panel with them respectively symbolized with CN's on the map displays their current stats (such as energy in store, stored AC, rate of packet disposal, health, etc.) yielding some different readings if they are not part of the same network. If the CN's were part of the same network, then some of their respective stats would be the same since energy for one is shared on 1 network with multiple CN's.

Also, I was thinking that stats pertaining to the number of a certain unit produced, number of units currently under construction, etc. somewhere on the screen (maybe on the control panel) would be shown.

[lurkily]

The problem is that in order to show all of this information at a glance, you have to put a LOT of information on the screen, and you have to show this data separately for every CN.  There can't be a single meter for all energy production/use because separate networks are supported.  A single graph would be a liar if your network was ever split or fragmented.

So you would require a meter (probably a bar graph) for each CN, probably current energy stored vs. max energy storage.  You'd need a number indicating current and maximum energy storage.  You'd need another chart and two numbers for AC.  Then you would need another set of two numbers each for production and consumption, of energy and AC, for all three CN's.

So far we already have 21 numbers on the screen, and six meters, even before we consider things like decaying (a.k.a.: moving) averages.  

I personally am in favor of keeping critical economic data on the map, where you are operating most often, and keeping the exact numbers, trends, and nitty-gritty details on the CN's selection tab, as most hardcore players that need that data will be paused often.

As for mousing-over to see the packet path . . . I don't think I see the point.  If you need a unit to use the most efficient packet path . . . it will.  If you want packets to use relay paths, they probably will.  If packets aren't using relay paths, then it's your fault for laying inefficient relay paths.  A feature like this may also be confusing in the case of units that require multiple resources, like bombers, which require packets at build time, but AC for reloads.  With guppies, there is a chance that the shortest path for AC or for packets may not be the same.

[4xC]

The only time there would be a single graph for the CNs is when they are in the same network. Seperated, there would be different ones. Sure they could be seen by clicking on an individual CN to cover the non-critical numbers and stats and such, but I thought knowing them in ANY way possible would be vital.

I thought would also be a fair add-on to the stats indicator collective was the number of units already produced and the number under construction to make it easier to know what there is too much or too little of in any case.

By the way, Lurkily, I think it would help if it was specifically mentioned who you bits of info are directly going to because for a while, I didn't know who you were directly talking to at a later point in your last reply until I saw the reply by Polatrite that came right before mine.

[lurkily]

The only time there would be a single graph for the CNs is when they are in the same network. Seperated, there would be different ones. Sure they could be seen by clicking on an individual CN to cover the non-critical numbers and stats and such, but I thought knowing them in ANY way possible would be vital.

I don't think it's a good idea for the charts to change constantly.  If they join into a single graph when the network's in one piece, then two then it's split in two, and three at other times, it would not be at-a-glance information.  You need to stop, re-evaluate the information, and parse it to determine which graph refers to which network.

I think if on-screen charting of network performance is displayed, there will have to be as many bars as you have CN's.  If your networks are joined, fine, they're identical.  In not, then you know just where the information for specific networks are (if you have any awareness of where your network assets are) without having to stop and think, "wait, is that joined graph the SAME two CN's on a network as it was the LAST time my network split?"

I would like to avoid every possible situation where a player can get comfortable with what a bar or meter means, (or any asset for that matter,) and when acting by instinct informed by that at-a-glance information, possibly be wrong.  I hate it when a player's instincts betray them.

By the way, Lurkily, I think it would help if it was specifically mentioned who you bits of info are directly going to because for a while, I didn't know who you were directly talking to at a later point in your last reply until I saw the reply by Polatrite that came right before mine.

Sorry about that.  In many of my post, when several posts have passed without comment, I will often speak to an idea, without addressing an individual, and let those individuals that posted opposing/agreeing arguments ring in on their own if they feel the need to.

I'll try to curtail that - it's caused confusion before.

[4xC]

Well, what if you had to click on a single CN if it was on a seperate network from another one to see its graph and/or stats?

Then again, perhaps you could have 3 separate graphs for each CN all the time and they would have identical readings if their corresponding CNs were on the same network?

Although,  I think it would help even more if we could determine the most vital stats from the more redundant ones at this point; especially considering what you said about 21 #'s being brought to light and not covering everything there is.

[cooltv27]

for the display of status, there could be a small part of the screen that is blank, when you mouse over something in a net work the box will fill with the info from that net work, energy anti creeper production and usage