|
Is it me, or is the audio track on Poison messed up? It sounds like it's recording through a built-in mic. I'm finding the play style works pretty well for the LP format, since in most levels you're not rushing to win — or not to lose —and it can be just the gradual expansion of territory. It's relaxing in a way to see the map slowly get covered in green. On the DTD level, that was one of the first Flash games I played (and the first use of this user name, in fact). You'd place down your towers, which were squares with the weapon indicated on them. I'm guessing it was just an attempt to have the squares have something different on them, to vaguely resemble placed towers. Another connection is that the enemies were called 'creeps' and entered at either the left or top entrance, in the same manner as the CW map.
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2018 08:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
I like watching the blind run, although I have to say it's kind of frustrating to watch a video where it's very obvious you're in a failing run and you don't realize it for another ten minutes. Of course we can always skip ahead but starting the video in the middle means missing out on the context that set it up. Probably I should just skim the screenshots and find the spot in the video to start. That said, I haven't liked CW2 hardly at all; I really hope that CW3 is as suggested a turn away from puzzle-based gameplay. I enjoyed CW1 way more, since it was more relaxing to see the win gradually develop, and if there aren't as many points of "LOSE NOW UNLESS YOU DO X" I'll enjoy the next game as well.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
This answered one question that I was never sure of until now - whether or not you needed a clear path to the target for a nullifier to work (it's clearly implied, but it hadn't been tried yet by you). Of course if it did work, it'd trivialize some of the campaign levels. I wonder if that last gateway had some death-drone in it that only comes out if you take way too long to complete the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
That Youtube link isn't working for me. Looked in your channel and didn't find it there either, but then again YT is missing the last two from your channel listing as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Kind of surprised that Lia didn't take off her mask and turn out to actually be AI-Skars as well. Maybe in the next universe.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
ousire posted:Unless I'm mistaken it doesn't look like there'd be enough space to land a command center by the totems around his shield; it looks like the only place you could land is in the top right corner. It does look like you could run relays on the higher islands and make use of it for quite some time, though. It's probably even possible to put a few cannons there that could protect the relays. Outside of the parts near the tri-force, the digitalis seems rather unimportant on that map.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
I believe you've been the victim of a Cross-LP Attack. Did you take out the Creeper homeworld? Or maybe that's an extensive amount of scripting on that map. (Video link isn't correct).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2019 08:07
|
|
|
So what actually causes creeper to flow into digitalis? Does the emitter simply need to be on 'top of' a connected digitalis tile and it's automatic or is there something more? I'm also curious if it would have been possible to put a nullifier on the rim in Megaland (1) and have it knock out the moving emitter before it actually did anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
Some of those questions are so poorly written that it doesn't matter what your electrical knowledge is. Question 1: What happens when Switch A closes? (Correct answer: A, 'Short circuit') This one is fine. (It's interesting to me, Thotimx, that your interpretation of 'short circuit' led to confusion in the next question. A 'short circuit' just means there's a path back to the power source that completely bypasses any 'real' components. Here, with Switch A closed, the lamp is bypassed and it doesn't matter what Switch B is doing. Question 2: Will you be able to see the light from the lamp...? (Correct answer: B, 'no', due to the short circuit going around it on the lower branch.) Note the screenshot update is incorrect as to the answer, but it's shown in the video. This one is okay as well, but starting to get worrying in the wording, as pointed out. Why say 'see the light from the lamp' instead of just saying 'will the lamp turn on'? Question 3: Which component do you have to place at the question mark to dim the lamp? (Correct answers: A, B, D apparently) This one is even harder to follow. 'Dim' the lamp relative to what? Is there something in the ? spot already? We can guess that it's an open circuit now and we're dropping something in to be in parallel with the resistor on the bottom, except without any values given, it's entirely a guess as to what should be correct. If the resistor's value is small, putting in a forward diode (C) would also dim the bulb. That sounds pedantic, and it is. The reasonable expectation because no values are given is that these are ideal components. But in that case D has zero effect and should be a wrong answer too. To top it off, the phrasing of the question should really be clearer that multiple answers are allowed even after the explanation of how to select them. Question 4: How much energy does each lamp get in one hour? (Correct answer: C, 162kJ) I could quibble a bit over 'get', but this one is okay. Question 5: Which switches need to be closed to turn the light on? (Correct answer: D, 'both') For some reason they used 'light' instead of 'lamp', but this one is okay too. The mystery component there is a relay, a device that controls a switch, but only if the relay itself is energized. Closing A energizes the relay, closing the first switch; but both that switch and B need to be closed. Question 6: Turn on exactly one lamp. (Correct answer: B,C ??) We didn't see what the correct answer here is, but if D was the correct answer to #3, maybe it's correct here too. Maybe C is wrong because it's not going to turn the lamp on brightly enough? Or B isn't the right size to energize the relay? Given the way this quiz has gone, just about any answer might be expected here. I'd also argue it's not that interesting as a way to show off the scripting language, since it barely includes gameplay elements in it. This is literally a game about managing the flow of stuff; it would have been far better to be able to find the answers by routing creeper into various paths to see the effects, and use the text to demonstrate the analogy to electricity.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
General Revil posted:If you assume the question mark is an open circuit to begin with, A, B, and C will all make it brighter, and D will have no effect. If you assume it's a wire to begin with, all of them will make it dimmer for the reasons you described. Ah, that's the assumption. If ? is a wire and you assume an ideal diode model (short-circuit forward and open-circuit reverse), then A,B, & D is the right answer. Making that choice in a question about placing a component in a ? spot with no indication of the model used is nigh-impossible to figure out without working from the answer. I got so perplexed trying to figure out how that could be the answer to replace an open-circuit that I got it completely backwards and was thinking it must be to make it brighter, not dim it (and then wrote it down wrong).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
I'm a little behind on the videos, but you did get hit with spores in Creeper Wall 3; you moved all your beams at once and that's just asking to let one slip by. In most missions you've done that there were backups near your command node, but in this one you didn't put them up until later.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Am I wrong in thinking that the 'CreeperMultipliers' actually help you if they move over anti-creeper? It looks like that was happening in this run, since the AC in the upper corner was being distributed to the lower corner. Apparently with interest, as well. Also, that level really needed a better signal that the main core was vulnerable. One of the noticeable things about this author is the way information is obfuscated when it really shouldn't be, or just never explained well. It seems to be intentional (for more 'challenge'?) but it's kind of annoying. Kangra fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jul 19, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
You can always just go with the current game in parentheses for the thread title if you don't want to change it up too much. If we're still voting, I'm for maybe 3 more CW3 missions because I feel like we've seen an awful lot of what people have done with this game, and I also think you will get a chance to fill time waiting for the release of CW4.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2019 08:59
|
|
|
NHO posted:Creeper World 4 looks kinda like Perimeter to me. (That quote's from way up the thread in 2018, but I just discovered Perimeter since I'd picked it up super-cheap or free a while back and got to it now.) I was playing Perimeter and noticed that since enemy spawn points frequently don't go away, you end up having to force your way in with your mobile units, then build a stable system of static defenses so that you can move on and push the boundary of your base. "Kind of like Creeper World 1," I thought. Then I realized that I was extending a base network by building energy towers, or by building long-range transmitters that could go farther, but not make more energy. And they all had to be connected back to a very large unit (the 'Frame') that could land on the ground, or hover, or move slowly around. And the point of the level was to connect to specific points on the map with energy, in order to finally build a 'portal' that, once charged, would let the Frame fly up and escape the planet. The buildings are actually 'built' by energy packets that fly across the map and you have to wait for. You can turn on a big shield that protects your units but consumes a lot of energy. And a rather important part of the game is terraforming the terrain to be a certain level, by painting the map so the terraformers know where to work. There's even this overwrought plot about humans exploring the stars but encountering some unknown enemy called 'the Scourge' that keeps showing up and there's a whole lot of philosophizing going on. There is a definite resemblance, but they are also quite different, so maybe CW4 is kind of exploring some of the other ideas and heading more in the direction Perimeter actually did go. I think it has a very clear influence on Creeper World, but Creeper World also does a lot of other things and the whole fluid dynamics and enemy flow isn't there in Perimeter. Perimeter is also very nearly a terrible game due to a few serious design flaws and very unclear objectives in the missions. I don't know that I'd recommend it. But it is one of those games that does something quite different and you look at it and say, "There's some good ideas here. Someone should use them." And then it turns out, someone has. So I guess check out Perimeter if you want to see where CW came from and may be going. Just be prepared for something that isn't even nearly as refined as CW 1 was.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
Really, that barely counted as a fail, but it is interesting to know they aren't going to all be pushovers. I know it's silly, but I find the sped-up audio unreasonably unlistenable. If you end up having to speed up a video, could you throw up a warning at the start of the post?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2019 08:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
I'd be curious to see how effective a 'deep strike' Lathe ship would be. I'm picturing something with a fairly thick armor shell around a core of a lathe and some energy storage. It wouldn't necessarily be for fully controlling nodes far from your zone of influence, but for taking some of the pressure off temporarily.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2020 05:34
|
|