Feature requests

[BFC]

I kind of agree with King on the cost of some things. It's completely out of the question to use the elastic cord for anything 99% of the time as it is enormously expensive. Same goes for rubber unless you plan to compress it and fire something a far enough distance to make up for the $200.00 you just spent (or more).

Right now if you create a solution that includes rockets, rubber or elastic cord you are most likely (not always) doing it the expensive way.

-BFC

[FFT]

I say up the cost of rubber, because it's mostly used as a canon...

This is a problem?


Personally, I think that the costs for stuff should be adjustable on a per level basis. That'd probably make everyone happy.

[PeterT]

1 Make longer pieces of cloth (>$20) $1-$2 less per segment - bulk discounts!
2 Rockets for $400 or less, or perhaps $400-$600 depending on length
3 Timer for $60 or less as nobody uses these in optimal solutions
4 Rubber for $60 or less as this is mainly used as a cannon
5 Elastic for $10 - $12
6 Tension for $60-$80

I agree with some of this, but I think $400 (or even $600!) rockets are a very bad idea. That way, every level with a somewhat large distance between 'dillo and goal would develop into a "who can balance the rocket cheapest" contest. Then again, with the current costs it's "who can build the best cannon/catch" which is a bit better, but not by much

I do like the adjusted long cloth, timer and elastic costs. However, balancing is always hard so most probably FFT's way would be the best (if any change is to be done at all).

[kingofthespill]

I agree with some of this, but I think $400 (or even $600!) rockets are a very bad idea. That way, every level with a somewhat large distance between 'dillo and goal would develop into a "who can balance the rocket cheapest" contest. Then again, with the current costs it's "who can build the best cannon/catch" which is a bit better, but not by much

Interesting, perhaps a level could be examined under the different cost system to compare them. Still with this system the cost of 2 tensioned rubber pieces with some additional materials would be clearly less than a rocket, like $240 + $100 vs. $400.

[Ogre]

The main feature I want is indestructible elements in the editor (but not for the player). If we could only get one feature, that would be the one for me. I don't like how many of the winning solutions to the included levels are built around destroying the pre-set elements. (But I'm also not advocating changing the included levels, just making this available to level makers)

The second feature I'd like is pre-set but movable elements. So the level creator could put a free rocket, or a free tensioned rubber, etc. in the level, that you could move or resize anywhere you want. As an example, some of the included levels are constructed with rockets that you are clearly meant to work with somehow. I think they'd be even better if the rockets were just placed off in a corner and the player was made to figure out the best way to place the rocket itself. This might get tricky if it included the unlimited length items (rope, cloth, elastic), but if it's up to the level designer to include them or not, I think that's ok.

Beyond that, out of the other things people have posted here, I think multiple armadillos and goals would be the coolest addition.

[tmcsweeney]

I don't think the costs don't need to be adjusted, and in fact I don't think changing them will make any huge difference. If we look at the problem of lifting the Armadillo up vertically there are currently three common solutions:

Rubber Cannon: low-ish fixed cost, limited range, often the cheapest way of going a short distance.

Cloth pulley: unlimited range, but gets more expensive the furthur you go, good for intermediate distances.

Rockets: High fixed cost, but unlimited range. More efficient than cloth for very long distances.

A lot of levels seem to end up falling directly into the middle of one of these three bands, thus it is obious which method should be used for that level.
Interesting levels have a travel distance that is on the borderline between two different methods, thus making it a trade off which one to use.

Adjusting the costs won't actually change this situation, it will just move around where the transition point are. This may actually make the game worse, for instance lowering the cost of rockets will make rockets the cheapest solution for a great many levels.

So once again the solution comes down to people getting better at level design. If you want to see more rocket solutions, make bigger levels, as this is where they excel. If you want more possible solutions experiment with the distance you are making the player travel so that it becomes a trade off between different possible techniques.

<hypocritical rant>The game is what it is (and it is pretty famn good). People seem far too keen to jump in and start changing it to suit their idea of what it should be, rather than taking the time to understand the mechanics and work within them first</hypocritical rant>

Cheers
Tim.

[BFC]

Perhaps you're right tmcsweeney. Some very valid points you bring up for sure.

I think that the absolute least used part is the timer. I'm not sure why it has to have a large cost as it doesn't accomplish anything on it's own. You have to purchase the part you are going to destroy and purchase the timer as well.

I suppose you could again come back to level size on the timer being useful now that I think about it. I'm not sure really.

I do know that really large levels seem to be un popular.

-BFC

[kingofthespill]

A lot of levels seem to end up falling directly into the middle of one of these three bands, thus it is obious which method should be used for that level.
Interesting levels have a travel distance that is on the borderline between two different methods, thus making it a trade off which one to use.

Interesting levels is exactly what I am talking about. This gets more levels into that interesting zone. Personally I like it when it isn't obvious which method should be used. That encourages more exploring options on each level. And how many times does a rocket proves the most cost effective? Just a tiny percentage of the time.

[Jonny]

I find the most interesting levels are those with the highest number of unique, but competitive, possible solutions. Achieving this is all about balancing the cost of the materials, and I agree with whoever said that this should be customisable by the level designer. It would be good if the designer could tailor the level such that solutions using a rocket cradle, or a rubber cannon, or a rope bridge, or a cloth pulley etc are all potentially optimal.

As king says, it's much more fun when the best solution is not obvious. I'm sure I'm not the only one who opens up a new level, and within seconds can say with relative certainty "this gap is X wide therefore the cheapest method is...". Removing this element will make (well designed) levels much more interesting, challenging and enduring, but I don't think there's a way of doing this by globally fixing the relative material costs.

[QuackAttack]

i think you need a more accurate way of putting timers. i hate how it jumps from (example) 5.24seconds to 5.45seconds... i want a way to be able to go between these 2.

[tmcsweeney]

i think you need a more accurate way of putting timers. i hate how it jumps from (example) 5.24seconds to 5.45seconds... i want a way to be able to go between these 2.

Zoom in and you'll find it waaaay more accurate. Clunky, but effective.

[Pipster]

@ QuackAttack: Perhaps an interface that allows to type in numbers.

How about a place to post the funniest solutions: We made one with a rocket hitting poor little 'dillo 3 times ...

I'd also like a grid, or a set of coordinates.


Some players love gadgets and tons of new materials, others prefer the simplicity. How about making an extended version some time in the future.
That way you can make more money, and please all

[JackR]

In regards to Pips want of a grid, for the time being you can get grid overlay programs (or at least a widget for opera!) that'll dump a grid over the entire screen, not sure how effective they are, though.

[Skrying]

I think the cost for rope, cloth, and elastic need to be rethought.

I think the issue with those items above is that they have a "starting" cost of sorts. It costs money to even start them, so they're not at all based on a per unit basis. This makes them FAR to expensive. Often times making rope a really pointless unit, just because of the starting cost, which puts a equal unit of maxed out metal bars and rope the same cost when it should really be $10 and $8 and not $10 $10.

[Andrew]

In certain circumstances, a rope costing 10 works better than a metal bar worth the same... but yes, you're totally right.
There are many tweaks required in AR... just how do you balance it to make everyone happy though?