EPT[D] Would you like more neutral structures? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
schimmetje
Netherlands1104 Posts
| ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
On February 10 2011 06:21 Zozo wrote: 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. Mineral stacking doesnt work in sc2. At least I haven't found a way to do it. Earlier today I thought about neutral Comsat Station that would allow any player to scan every * minutes or something. | ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
I think the best neutral structures for starcraft would not affect units, because it would be hard to include them without causing degenerate situations. I like the idea of garrisonable structures best, where you can park units (as in a bunker) for some benefit, but I'm not sure this could be executed well. I could see non-unit buff options, but the major alternate game resources are already provided for. Vision and mobility are covered. They also happen to be integral and interchangeable with the nuts and bolts of the game. Units can do everything these do. The only remaining things I can think of that don't augment units: -Detection, like a xel naga tower but for detection -Air unit impedement, like rocks but a no fly zone -Supply limit boost. This could grant extra supply, or it could increase the cap beyond 200, or both. It would have to be something like capturing a territory with a flag, a la halo, not just walk on like a tower. -Resource acquisition without a harvest center, possibly without workers. This seems very worthwhile if done correctly. It could create very interesting map dynamics. The bonus would have to be very small. Although this pretty much goes against everything we know in SC. -Teleporters. Meh. -Wrap around map edges. This would be cool, much better than teleporters, and much cleaner. But it wouldn't make aesthetic sense. The design of SC accounts for all these things. You could add things without disrupting the strategic environment too much, but the game pieces already give you access to all these things. For example, if you want to impede enemy mobility, stick an army there. If you want to impede air mobility, get air control. Vision and ground mobility are very basic, so they work the best. edit: further items. -The destructible bridge: This is a specific version of the inverse destructible rocks idea. There is a path that can be destroyed, closing off mobility, probably permanently. Using this well would be hard, because the game already gives each race ways to block mobility. In fact, I believe the design intentionally includes mobility downgrade abilities for each race, one per, as a sort of aesthetic symmetry. Protoss have forcefield of course (the purest), terrans have concussive shells, and zerg have fungal growth. The way these play out is accounted for in the balance. Yes, I realize marauders don't prevent movement completely, or block a choke absolutely. That is the point of what I said. I can see a very bold addition to the game in an expansion that allows constructible bridge sites (to put bridges back up for a resource cost / build time), which would also provide for maps that have bridge sites with bridges already installed. This could be very interesting, but it would be important to use it effectively, unlike backdoor rocks in the early map pool. Monitor's additions- -Neutral lowered supply depot is, put abstractly, destructible (and repairable I suppose) "no build" pathing. -Refineries on geysers is another implementation of destructible pathing; it doesn't differ functionally very much from a normal walloff, except that it always excludes large units. This differs from BW, where the refinery actually opened the path, like a constructible bridge. -Creep tumors: more things that are like rocks, blocking building and/or pathing until removed, except they're also cloaked. These also grant speed to zerg units, so they span both categories, and must be used very carefully as such, granting a race-preferential buff even, not to mention accelerating creep spread. | ||
|
Zeon0
Austria2995 Posts
| ||
iHirO
United Kingdom1381 Posts
For example, one map could have four attack paths to the other base; it might then be in a Terran player's interest to destroy 2 bridges to prevent flanking, while a Zerg player attempts to keep all the bridges intact. Another example could be destroying a bridge after a failed attack to force the opponent's counter attack on a longer path and allow time for reinforcements to be built. | ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
This thread game me some good ideas. If I only knew how to make certain buildings neutral and accessible for all the players :/ | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
 | ||
|
ihasaKAROT
Netherlands4730 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:58 Lonyo wrote: Neutral supply depots at the bottom of ramps to prevent building add a trigger if p2['type'] == 'zerg' && p2['playstyle'] == 'macro' generate_depots(findramp(p2['spawnlocation'])); else do_it_anyway();  | ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
Poll: Add one neutral building with each expansion? No (5) Yes (3) 8 total votes Your vote: Add one neutral building with each expansion? | ||
|
SaltyDog
Uganda73 Posts
| ||
|
3loodMoon
Thailand13 Posts
Perhaps this might be better for UMS rather then for a 'normal' SC2 map. | ||
|
Koshi
Belgium38799 Posts
On Blizzcon you guys might have seen that cool zerg unit that burrows under a bunker and takes it on his back? Maybe in the next expansion there will be neutral bunkers. ;P | ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
On February 10 2011 12:56 FlopTurnReaver wrote: Forget about that, bridges still need to have terrain underneath, they don't offer pathing. Bridges DO offer pathing, they just do it in a quirky way which makes the map analyzer ignore them. Check out one of my maps, Beneath the Ice, for an example of a bridge with no cliff beneath. Back to topic: I don't think destructible bridges is a good idea, if there is nothing which can bring them back (like engineers in CnC). Terran could just destroy them and then turtle without any punishment while an attacking zerg would be forced into using either air or attacking a certain path. A neutral planetary fortress might be a good idea, if it is guarding something precious, like a 10 mineral gold or 4 gas or something. But it might not fit on most maps, as you don't want anything hostile except your enemy. | ||
|
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
Other stuff seems less appropriate, but perhaps there's some good ideas out there... and lots of bad ones. :p | ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
On February 11 2011 00:21 NullCurrent wrote: Bridges DO offer pathing, they just do it in a quirky way which makes the map analyzer ignore them. Check out one of my maps, Beneath the Ice, for an example of a bridge with no cliff beneath. Back to topic: I don't think destructible bridges is a good idea, if there is nothing which can bring them back (like engineers in CnC). Terran could just destroy them and then turtle without any punishment while an attacking zerg would be forced into using either air or attacking a certain path. A neutral planetary fortress might be a good idea, if it is guarding something precious, like a 10 mineral gold or 4 gas or something. But it might not fit on most maps, as you don't want anything hostile except your enemy. Hm looks like so far I only tried it with the long one which doesn't appear to work. But thanks for that, finally I can use bridges^^ Only sucks now that you can't pass under bridges :/ They should fix that. | ||
|
Oliwoli
United Kingdom69 Posts
| ||
|
nTwLegy
Croatia63 Posts
long short: free drop every 2 mins pros:free cons:your opponent which most likely has a brain will expect it. | ||
|
NullCurrent
Sweden245 Posts
On February 11 2011 05:14 FlopTurnReaver wrote: Hm looks like so far I only tried it with the long one which doesn't appear to work. But thanks for that, finally I can use bridges^^ Only sucks now that you can't pass under bridges :/ They should fix that. It is not possible to have different ground levels in SC2 which cross each other. From what I've seen of it, the RTS game engine is completely in 2D while the graphics is in 3D. It just has a "flag" which tells if it is flying or not, and probably also preferred height so it changes its height depending on the height of the ground below. So if it isn't flying, it cannot pass under a bridge, and even flying units passing under a bridge would require a lot of scripting as you have to manually change the height value, or even mimic it with scripted doodads. | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
On February 10 2011 09:14 Zeon0 wrote: neutral command centers!? I always wanted this in bw, then the queens could infest them and the infested terrans could actually be used in a game. you know, those things that acted like banelings and were built from infested command centers, but their blast radius was twice that of the baneling and they did 500 damage to everything, including buildings? basicly oneshotted everything, pity they were so hard to get by, that was the major thing that hindered them from being used in a competitive game I feel. | ||
|
WinterNightz
United States111 Posts
Besides that, destructible bridges would be pretty interesting. The only problem I see is what happens if they're destroyed while ground units are on them. Presumably they would all die, or fall to a lower level. If the map is made well, it could become an incredibly tense situation, with armies tiptoe-ing forward onto the bridge, putting pressure onto each other, but backing up as they see the HP of the bridge decreasing. As soon as the bridge collapses, those units fall to the lower level where they have an incredibly long walk to get back to a defensible position, while the "victorious" army has an opportunity to run in and plunder the enemy base. It sounds cool, but it might place too many consequences on such a tiny mechanic. What I really would like is more hostile buildings. I remember there was a map a while back with all sorts of crazy things going on, one of which was a hostile planetary fortress in the middle of the map. It also had permanent force fields at some chokes which would have to be broken by a player with a massive unit. While I know this sort of stuff would probably never be seen in pro-level play, it would be so much fun to have more crazy stuff like that. (does anyone actually remember the name of that map with the hostile planetary and permanent force fields? I wish I could find it...) | ||
| ||
