|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Jun 1, 2013 13:19:35 GMT
I will probably disagree with the majority of the ideas that are posted. Many of them will not fit the game and can be detrimental to parts of the game as well. I also believe that there are parts of the game that require more attention before making new additions.
Although I disagree with a lot of the ideas, some of the ideas should probably be discusses, and those are the ones that are currently relevant to the game. Will brings up a good point about smaller creatures and maybe they should be able to have more power in the late game. This is something that I believe should be discussed more than new additions.
I want everyone to keep in mind that there are already so many strategies in IC that can be overpowered and a lot that are underpowered, which can be tweaked to add more variety to the game. I don't see a new in adding new abilities and other game play variants when the current state of the game can be explored further. Also, the more additions the harder it is to balance everything, and this will be a very important aspect among any competitive players.
|
|
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Jun 1, 2013 15:18:36 GMT
We are not creating a new game. It will still be Impossible Creatures with every aspect the same. Giving more animals, better stability between creations, and more options does NOT take the original idea away. You have all craved an impossible creatures 2 for years and I have seen a TON threads about it. If Relic+Microsoft were to make an Impossible Creatures 2, would you never play it again just because they add new options that you wanted before? I believe some of you are over-fondling the change.
The game is very old, I believe that is pretty obvious. That is the reason we need to make changes. No one at all would come to an old game with crappy graphics. They have no purpose to. Sure, we could run the server the way it is now. But what is the purpose? To have 10 people playing once in a while then eventually shut it down like Dengus? It does cost money to keep things alive on a game. They will not be looking at the age because we would not be advertising the age lol. We would be advertising the new amazing graphics, the new animals, and all of the other changes we did. If we tried to go advertise "Come play a 2002 RTS game that died off 5+ years ago!"....I am pretty sure that would fail lol.
So basically to clarify, changing the game is not exactly debatable. It will be changed. I am asking for suggestions from the community to change it though. We might release just an original version so you guys can play it. But that would only be for the small group that is playing right now because I highly doubt new players will come to play that version.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Jun 1, 2013 16:12:18 GMT
You're sending a couple mixed messages there-- you're saying it will be IC in every important sense, which is all we're after, but then you're saying that changes are unavoidable...? Exactly what changes do you foresee us disagreeing with? To clarify, I for one was simply concerned that you intended to change the fundamental atmosphere of IC-- if you'll retain that, then I'm sure the result will be good. You have to understand-- all of us here have remained loyal to a game that, as you have said, is very old. It's our baby, and we all of us are its ridiculous mixed-bag assortment of parents. We're very keen for a new and beautiful version of IC, but I'm sure you can understand our wariness; given that we've kept the game kicking for so long now, it would have been a shame to see it turn into something other than the game we love simply to get more play. But if you reckon this won't happen, I trust you on that-- and by the way, I have no problems with any of the changes you've suggested so far whatsoever . Also Blother's right. ... Obviously.
|
|
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Jun 1, 2013 16:23:30 GMT
"you're saying it will be IC in every important sense, which is all we're after, but then you're saying that changes are unavoidable"
Yes, that is what I am trying to say.
" Exactly what changes do you foresee us disagreeing with?"
The fundamentals to the game are staying the same. The concept of the game is staying But I am assuming some of you would like to see more buildings, research, animals, etc. I was hoping you guys would pitch ideas and then debate about them. An example would be:
Towers which use electricity which can be placed in the water to kill water animals.
Debate: Should the tower use a specific amount of your electricity to kill a group in a specific area or should it work like a sonic tower and send out surges of electricity every so often.
The above is the type of responses I was hoping for.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jun 1, 2013 16:38:01 GMT
again, i feel like before going all out and adding a heap of new content things need to be planned and fixed the game isnt very balanced at all and fixing that is probably the main priority blother is right obviously
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Jun 1, 2013 16:43:32 GMT
Yeah...
As my distinguished and learned colleagues have stated, if you want a game people will play, first thing to fix is balance. Which is a much larger issue than it seems at first, especially if you're basing it off an early version of IC. Actually, good point, me; what version of IC are you basing it off?
|
|
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Jun 1, 2013 17:14:10 GMT
"There are also some other ideas floating around, but we are really looking for huge updates that can be developed in the future. I am asking the community to pitch us ideas, give us reasoning behind the ideas, and flaws that may be seen if certain ideas would be created. This will help us create a better Impossible Creatures and will prevent glitches/problems."
I am asking for suggestions to create multiple updates in the future. We are not going to release it all at once.
Also, we have not decided which we will base it off from yet. Right now we are focusing on the graphical changes.
|
|
|
Post by Blother Had Me Like on Jun 1, 2013 18:08:33 GMT
I'm sorry I hope I didn't cause any distress with what I was saying. I agree with ritysayo that the game needs changes and a lot of updating to make it appeal to a new crowd again. People should still throw out all their ideas, but I would believe that there would only be a handful of good additions out of the large amount of ideas that will be given.
Obviously the game needs an overhaul, but I don't believe there have to be a lot of changes gameplay wise to appeal to new players (basically like what ritysayo has been saying about updating graphics but not changing major game mechanics). Of course, there is always room for more stock/updated stock and a couple new abilities, and possibly a couple more buildings. However, I don't see a reason in looking at changes beyond this point because there is so much that can/needs to be improved upon on the backbone of the game.
I really don't want to kill the buzz I just personally need stepping stones before I start to look at the beautiful future that could be Impossible Creatures 2. One of those stepping stones is simply getting back to playing because it has been so long since we last had real games. Once we start playing again I am sure we will find plenty of improvements we can make to the game.
|
|
|
Post by thedoktor on Jun 1, 2013 18:28:00 GMT
I would love to see sea-based weapons. The electric fields, or depth charges/sea mine would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jun 1, 2013 19:38:12 GMT
i want small units and pure swimmers to bemore viable because im a horrible person
|
|
|
Post by thedoktor on Jun 1, 2013 21:24:12 GMT
I would like Smaller units and pure swimmers to be more viable as well, Matt. Aside from them being cheaper, and some maps supporting it. The popular maps rarely have support for pure swimmers, as they are giant landmasses. Look at Grove or Deep Freeze. Some new maps would have to brought in to, excuse the pun, test the waters on what works in pure Water Combat and go from there. Perhaps something with a similar layout as Grove but instead of going up to a hill in the middle it goes down into a submerged Geo source/lake or something.
|
|
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on Jun 1, 2013 23:02:39 GMT
@matt - Honestly I was already looking as some ways to make them more viable. I was fondling of creating maps which allow sea melees to reach the lab. But some changes would need to be made. Basically, the labs would have to be modified with a flotation device at the bottom of them. Well an object that appears to be a floating device.We can then place the labs near the land mass with the coal + henchmen (same distance as they would be on a land mass,) This will allow sea melee animals access to the labs. This would probably be implemented along with the electricity towers to keep a little more balance when trying to protect your lab
P.S. I am just brainstorming currently, this patch would not come out for a few months (if at all) so be free to criticize and figure out how it would be abused.
|
|
|
Post by BARRY MANILOW on Jun 2, 2013 10:33:39 GMT
I thought Matt fixed that. figure out how it would be abused. Probably with lobsters. You'd need to have some natural or buildable way to obstruct access to a water lab, just as you have cliffs and fences on land maps. Perhaps natural reefs as a map feature and a buildable seaweed fence? It may also be a good idea to allow building of all buildings in water, so that a water lab isn't as isolated and you can maintain a similar base structre to a land base. The models for each building could have a land and water version, with the latter having floats similar to the water chamber.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Jun 3, 2013 6:53:38 GMT
We were fondling shark nets.
I dunno how I feel about having predominantly water maps. I think it would look... Kind of stupid to start a game and just have your lab in the middle of the ocean with a bunch of henchmen swimming around it. I mean, really. Why not just park somewhere you don't have to constantly tread water?
I agree that there should be more water buildings, but not that you should be able to build more of the existing ones on water. Perhaps a water version of the air chamber, but that's really it... Maybe a gyrocopter pontoon.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on Jun 3, 2013 6:54:20 GMT
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Shh shh shh.
Shhhhhh.
|
|