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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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.
Like someone else said, the game's still being figured out and the judges are still out on things like rocks and gold expos and their effects, so.. not now. Maybe later though, if implemented with a lot of care as to not have to profound effects on the gameplay. Otherwise I feel the campaigns'd be better suited for them.
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.
There are two major classes of neutral structure, those that affect unit stats directly and those that augment a different game resource. The neutral structures we have so far are all the second type. Towers give you vision, rocks impede movement, LOS cuts vision. Terrans have access to bunkers which directly augment units granting repairability and hp buffer, and that's it.
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.
Destructible bridges in combination with destructible rocks could add an interesting dynamic to a map.
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.
There should certainly be different models for Xel'Naga Towers, the crrents one looks a little out of place in maps like Metalopolis and even Lost Temple. The model itself is clearly designed for the Ulnar (Xel'Naga Worldship) texture set.
I think this has already been mentioned, but the game is still being figured out..., I do however agree with this if things like vision blocker (vents and tall grass) or more path blockers (destructible rocks) are included in maps. This would however need to be applied in a way to make it neutral to each race.
Perhaps this might be better for UMS rather then for a 'normal' SC2 map.
This is maybe something for the expansions but not for now, the game is currently still being explored.
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
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.
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.
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.
I don't understand why anyone would be against the inclusion of more neutral features for melee maps. If they are imbalanced, either don't use them or use them to offset another racial disadvantage. Why complain about having more options?
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.
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.
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.
I really love the idea of tunnels: terrain where flying units cannot enter/pass, but ground may.
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...)
If a bridge were over no terrain (or at least far above the ground), could zerg units feasibly burrow into it? I cannot imagine an ultralisk burrowing into a bridge without busting through the bottom. And could this be a way to change the bridge; i.e. an ultralisk burrows through a bridge, falls to the ground beneath it, and leaves a big hole in the middle that other units must walk around?
they exerpimented with neutral abilites back in bw (like a constant darkswarm). most of them didn't really work out, but i think its worth revisiting. Not now though, i'd say in a few years when the game is a lot more solid and balanced.
Just for reference, here's a list of buildings/units that could be used easily:
--lowered supply depos at ramps to prevent walls --refineries at gas geysers blocking pathing --creep tumor at CC (requires detection) --creep tumor near CC (easy Zerg expo, P or T need detection)
destructible rocks walling off parts of a ramp to provide a standard narrow choke that can be later expanded, or pressured into
all sorts of things can be done with extra neutral objects, like we saw in bw maps as the game evolved
but it's not yet the time to start considering trying out things like this seriously, when we're barely starting to see the emergence of the mapmaking community's influence on the game and map design elements are barely beginning to get figured out in terms of the effects they bring upon gameplay
There could be neutral creep tumors, kinda like coloseum in BW, where there was that neutral sunken that spread creep and allowed zerg to sunken that up without putting a hatchery there. Ideally the creep would be in a location that doesn't block the natural from going up to allow P and T to expand without waiting 4 hours for the creep to go away, but also be sufficiently close to actually allow zergs to defend with spines
This should give zergs a small boost against 2 rax and maybe 4 gate, allowing them to start placing spines before the hatch finishes, or even lay a poop creamer there very early. Dunno if zerg needs a boost like that, but I think it's not game breaking and can be offset by making the map T/P friendly in other ways
I think this thread has pretty much wrapped up after getting nowhere, but I'll prolong in the self-important endeavor of completing my earlier post, which left something out. It was meant to be a comprehensive list after all.
-The destructible bridge: I am sad I forgot this because I have a comment about it specifically. 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.
They could and probably will, with HotS or LotV, add high-yield vespin geysers. Though maybe technically not a structure, i could see the power-up pieces of free minerals/gas from campaign be featured on multiplayer maps in a nice way. Maybe hidden behind destructable rocks or on islands, to encourage using the whole map. A new building might be one that cloaks all units within a certain range.
There already is high-yield vespene in the editor, so you don't need to make your game custom to have it. It's just not used in any of the Blizzard maps.
EPT
