|
Germany4434 Posts
Poll: Would you like more neutral structures?No, Xel'Naga Towers are enough. (99) 51% Yes, more neutral structure would give more depth. (57) 30% I already think that the Xel'Naga Towers are too much. (37) 19% 193 total votes Your vote: Would you like more neutral structures? (Vote): I already think that the Xel'Naga Towers are too much.
(Vote): Yes, more neutral structure would give more depth.
(Vote): No, Xel'Naga Towers are enough.
Would you like to see more neutral structures? In WC3 there were healing fountains, shops and many more... I don't say that SC2 needs the same things, but I would like to see more neutral buildings.
What do you think about that and what would you add?
|
I have no clue what such a building would be. If someone can come up with something clever that would add something to the game I'd be fine with it, but if it's just adding structures for "depth", no thanks.
|
I think that there are a lot of creative possibilities that will add strategic depth to the game involving neutral structures.
|
There are a lot of cool things you could add to the game, but the question would be are they adding depth to gameplay or just cheap gimmicks? This kind of stuff seems perfect for Mods more than for the game itself.
|
I think that the game is fine as it is. Some neutral doodads like the statues in Metalopolis would be cool, since it adds to the map's aesthetics.
|
Maybe later in the game's life. Currently its still being figured out, and shouldn't be messed with moreso.
However, it might be cool later on if there were buildings you could take and hold that give you passive bonuses, or perhaps access to purchase mercenaries... or things like that.
I'd say not for several years though, or at least until the game is universally regarded as balanced, and map design is figured out, in more detail.
|
it had those things because of the small army size + heroes.... SC2 doesn't have that... so no.
|
On February 10 2011 06:18 Draconicfire wrote:
I think that the game is fine as it is. Some neutral doodads like the statues in Metalopolis would be cool, since it adds to the map's aesthetics.
but... misclicking blings into them really hurts =[
|
I'd go the opposite and let's make Xel'Naga Towers destructible. Allowing a player to cut vision completely. But regardless, I think any neutral building should be destructible.
If a player has the skill of scouting, why not kill the tower and force scouting into the map.
And while we're at it... can we have some maps with creep already on it ^_^ Neutral of course!!!
|
Well there's also destructible rocks and LOS blockers in addition to the Xel'Naga Towers.
Rocks - restrict movement paths until destroyed
los blockers - adds strategic depth by making you think twice about your position and making you aware that you need vision
xel'naga towers - gives an insane amount of vision of an area on the map
So I'm not sure if anything else could be added to affect gameplay that much.
EDIT: forgot about the statues. void rays charging up on them is hilarious
|
No please.
The inherent nature of neutral structures is that the benefits it provides tend to favor one race mechanics over the other. This was a problem which was evident in wc3(like healing fountains + orcs and mana fountains + undead heroes).. We dont need such considerations in sc2.
|
I'd like for forcefields to become high HP, high armor neutral structures.
That way you have an inefficient, yet viable way of breaking a forcefield contain, especially when its only 1-2 sentries.
|
maybe something other than destructible rock would be nice also more animals
|
I think we could use new stuff that copy the old BW gimmicks, like the stackable mineral. Having a bridge that requires workers to be lowered would be neat.
|
^You can add "depth" with metalopolis-like doodads.
For example, in the middle of the battlefield there's an house.
With lots of HPs.
In late game, terran could jus hid his army behind and use it as a wall.
As zerg could use it for circling and blocking units, for example.
But both sides could destroy it.
Would be nice, imho.
|
On February 10 2011 06:19 djWHEAT wrote:
I'd go the opposite and let's make Xel'Naga Towers destructible. Allowing a player to cut vision completely. But regardless, I think any neutral building should be destructible.
If a player has the skill of scouting, why not kill the tower and force scouting into the map.
And while we're at it... can we have some maps with creep already on it ^_^ Neutral of course!!!
It would be cool to do on some maps. Maybe choose between the two, when the mapmakers make the map?
|
More neutral structures would be great, as long as they are balanced or purely aesthetic. I personally would like to see more of the current neutral structures utilized more in maps. Map features like vents/tall grass, xel naga towers, and destructible rocks add to gameplay quite a bit. Critters are also really nice.
|
Goblin upgraders. Purchase Boots of Speed for your Marines! Get +3 +3 +3 for your Queens! +150 HP for your Zealots!
|
United States17042 Posts
moved to starcraft 2 maps
|
I think you should add some sort of option to the poll regarding destructable rocks, which also function as neutral structures. contrary to many old BW players I hear, I think xel naga towers and rocks add good, strategic depth to the game, though I have never played BW myself. The rocks would function better if they were only to block back doors or secondary movement paths rather than block expansions imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
