The game difficulty and how to fix that

[Stormtrooper]

The problem with game difficulty I see after playing for a while is that once you secure some terrain initially and manage to hold off the creeper so that it doesn't increase you've already won. You'll take a lot time to purge the entire map, maybe you'll struggle in one region or another, but if you've managed to stop the initial tidal wave of creeper and halt its advance, you've won, all the feeling of dread, need to use high ground and all that is gone because you've essentially won.

The soultion which would work in my opinion? Make the emitters emit more creeper over time. That way the dread of getting flooded will remain forever unless you nullify the last emitter and if you aren't efficient enough you'll lose as your line of defence which might be enough for now won't last forever.

[Strategic Sage]

There are maps that are made like that, but it doesn't really change it in a way that satisfies everyone (see Holdem 2 in the Span Experiments). There's still an tipping point at which point the player either outscales the creeper increases - in which case you have the same basic scenario as now but it just takes even longer to get there - or the player can't ramp up that fast in which case the level effectively has a time limit before it becomes too much, and players *detested* time limits in the previous games which is why they aren't around in the campaign anymore.

[Sharlatan]

no thanks. Hate time limits like that.

Some people like to play speed runs, some like to take their time. Under the current system you can do either, if you scale up creeper emittors, you make it so everyone has to speed run, and I personally hate that.

Thankfully the series supports total modding access, so if you want maps that do different things....you can learn how to do it.

[Kaluth]

Oh god that one mission to save the capsules was tedious in CW3.

[Balsover]

To me, this is the core gameplay, change it and it wouldn't be the same game anymore.

[Torbes3186]

I think a better option to consider is more like a counter, i.e. as you take objectives/nullify the creeper might spike or increase in response. This way its a bit more dynamic. Could even incorporate a threat mechanic ala AI War in CW5. I agree that the first 5-15 mins or so are the most exciting while it can be tedious later.

[Strategic Sage]

I think that still ends in basically the same place. Essentially it punishes the player for succeeding, and pointlessly prolonges the grind period of the game.

[Symatrix Hill]

When we managed to stop the initial tidal wave of enemy and halt their advance , "we have won in all game folks"and that is the case and not only here.

[Jembley]

To me it's the one (of) true RTS where turtling is a super viable strategy, and I love it for it

[Stormtrooper]

Originally posted by Symatrix Hill:

When we managed to stop the initial tidal wave of enemy and halt their advance , "we have won in all game folks"and that is the case and not only here.

Strongly disagree, just because you hold enemy for now doesn't mean it won't grow in strength later. And if you lack the forces to destroy said enemy, then in most games they likely will, unlike here.

[Stormtrooper]

Originally posted by Jembley:

To me it's the one (of) true RTS where turtling is a super viable strategy, and I love it for it

Don't see why increasing creeper output would limit turtling so much it'd no longer be viable.

[Stormtrooper]

Originally posted by Strategic Sage:

I think that still ends in basically the same place. Essentially it punishes the player for succeeding, and pointlessly prolonges the grind period of the game.

Not really, actually love the idea of more creeper output as you conquer objectives. Grind is what we have now after you halt the initial creeper wave. But if the creeper increased with each objective, then after conquering each a new challenge would be presented as your current forces could not be enough to stop it anymore if, of course, the precise amount would get balanced properly.

[Strategic Sage]

I think my first reply in this topic covers that, but it doesn't solve the issue presented at all.

[Stormtrooper]

If you scale creeper based on objectives rather than time then it solves time limit issue (well I hate time limits myself).

[Strategic Sage]

It definitely does that, but it doesn't solve the grind part since, as I mentioned, either the player can scale up to the level of the new challenge (meaning it just takes longer) or they can't in which case they lose. It's just a repetition of the same issue from the start of the map.

[Stormtrooper]

Every game could be summarized as "either the player can scale up to the level of the new challenge or they can't in which case they lose", which makes your last statement meaningless. And that's the exact point, to have the player forced to scale up because the enemy expands rather than turning all challenge there was into grind because the enemy got halted and it won't grow in strength anymore. I don't recall any other strategy game where the enemy wouldn't continue to grow after you defend yourself successfully once.

As for the length... Would you rather have 1h missions out of which only mins is challenging gameplay and 45 mins is grind or 2h missions out of which 2h is challenging gameplay and 0 mins is grind?