EPTI do have an idea about how to keep Recovery Drone in the game, though. How about adding it as an ability on the Medivac, which allows the Medivac to "grab" units from a distance and load them? Rather than moving the unit to the Medivac's position, it loads the unit into the Medivac (unsieging a tank when used on a sieged tank).
OneGoal: A better SC2 [Project Hub] - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
I do have an idea about how to keep Recovery Drone in the game, though. How about adding it as an ability on the Medivac, which allows the Medivac to "grab" units from a distance and load them? Rather than moving the unit to the Medivac's position, it loads the unit into the Medivac (unsieging a tank when used on a sieged tank). | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On January 02 2013 15:19 FoxyMayhem wrote: Hey guys, since I can't type but still want to interact with ya, I've recorded my reply.  On January 02 2013 15:19 FoxyMayhem wrote: Hey guys, since I can't type but still want to interact with ya, I've recorded my reply. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UR2YO4GAek I disagree, You make some good points but your not seeing RTS as a whole. Heres the problems I see. 1) Of course we need cool battle micro, but that will not make us see the difference between the 50th best player and the 45th player. Even if you add multiple levels of dynamic micro, players will still be able to do everything else perfect macro wise. SO we will end up with games where we have 1-2 epic 1 minute battles and then the game is over. Maybe one guy out microed the other guy in one of those battles and won. Your going to end up with your 50 top players that all have the micro down about 95% and then its going to be just as sporadic as WoL. One day one guy is on fire, and he wins MLG. The next week the guy gets crushed at the GSL, because the 39th best player was having a really good day. Your basically cloning Peyton Manning and putting him on every NFL team. Yea maybe some of the newer quarterbacks(foreigners cough cough) cant be Peyton Manning, but when you have 100+ pro koreans playing 12 hours a day they get to a point where they can play a game like Onegoal or WoL and master the macro system with relative ease. Then all the game is decided on is quick battles. Instead You need to add limited selection for buildings and units. And make the pathing worse while also removing smart casting. The one thing I think that should stay is auto mine. That is the one thing that did not make sense in BW and should be kept. That is some unecessary interaction and I agree with you there. Once you implent this then by all means keep making battle micro more intersting, it will be the icing on the cake! By making the game as a whole harder you are accomplishing a few things that will help the game get to where it needs to be. 1) With limited selection it will be close to impossible to play a perfect game. There will be no skill ceiling. Pros will have to train harder, faster and stronger. You will see a much more rigged and structured top 50 players. With this change we will have a true flash or jaedong, where instead of being the flavor of the week they become. HOLY SHIT nobody can even come close to stopping this guy. His control is to good. This is what is exciting, people want to watch and witness un-human like behavior. They want to see Michael Phelps win 92123823 gold medals, They want to see Peyton Manning throw consistent perfect throws, they want to see Savior make the "weakest" race the unbeatable race even on T and P favored maps. You must create this excitement, or you will fail. 2) In regards to casuals(bronze-Plat, this is what match making is all about. Matching similiar skilled players vs each other so that no matter how high the skill cieling is they are playing somebody who is having the same problems. 3) In regards to diamond-master-GM players you are also helping them a lot. A problem that we see with this caliber of player is that they hit their general skill cap fast in SC2. Sure they are missing some small details that when added up makes the pros 81239283 better. But these players are experiencing is that they hit there skill ceiling quickly and then the game becomes stale and boring. There are also way to many games that are lost even when the player is mechanically worse than you. Those losses are infuriating and happen frequently in SC2. With a higher skill ceiling these losses will greatly disappear and we will see much of the true skilled players rising in their ranking. These players will never come close to hitting the skill ceiling but would enjoy something more to work towards. Like I said, your missing the RTS as a whole. Time spent battling makes up a small percentage of an average SC2 game. Just making it harder for this one minute will not create an exciting differant game. RTS is also about economy, the challenge of building an army, the challenge of moving a giant army, and then finally the battles. You need to increase all areas of the game, not just one. RTS should be fueled by mechanics and driven by strategy. SC2 is backwards and OneGoal will be the same unless you dramatically raise the skill cap in all areas. | ||
|
vrumFondel
Russian Federation42 Posts
| ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
You are talking about something that is fundamental as economy. We intend to add difficulty and deep decision making to Macro to separate the good players from the great players. Toss Warp Gate is actually a good example of this. If you are good, you rally units from Gate Ways and then convert for a big push, then convert them back to gateways for standard production. If you are godlike, you can actually cycle gateways to warpgates, warp units in, then cycle the warp gates back to gateways, and convert a different cluster. The timings change with the number of gateways on the field, but you can effectively get the macro power and positioning of WoL warpgates...It just takes 250+ APM to macro. Our hope is to add or change Terran and Zerg macro mechanics to enable skilled plays and techniques to require that APM for optimal play at the top .01 percent of players. We want to do it without making the skill floor too high, which your changes enforce. SC2 has a high enough skill floor that it makes it hard to approach, which has been a losing strat against the low skill floor, high skill cieling of LoL. Despite LoL's many imbalances and terrible readability, it is accessible enough that it has a large enough following to dwarf SC2's entire viewer base two or three times over. Too be clear, we are ok with making the game harder at high levels. The difficulty coming from the UI is simply not fun or readable to any esport audience. Besides, why do it when you can make them real mechanics tied to art and theme? Match making isn't enough, players need feedback from the game itself to have fun. If you screw up a ton and don't do anything cool, why are you even playing the game? Lowering the skill floor is fine and good as long as it doesn't impact the skill ceiling. | ||
|
badname
Australia25 Posts
First of all I don't understand where all this BC in combination with mech or more in particular with siege tanks talk is coming from. From my perspective BC doesn't synergise with bio that well but then I wouldn't say its any better with mech, also combine this with the fact that I tend to see more transitioning from bio to BC then mech to BC I just end up puzzled. To me BCs seem largely self synergising units that either need minimal support from key units or could be added to any army to bolster its strength. In the end you could change the BC to be more support or supplementary unit so it can work with mech but that just seems like butchering the unit and making it something its not. In conclusion I think something should be done with the BC but I also think the unit is more of a optional late game core unit that you turn your army into or something you get a few of to draw fire and not some weird ass support unit. As far as yamato cannon ability its self goes I see it less of a skill to use and more of a formality and extension of the BCs power that can vary as a BC with a yamato will often kill to live another day and one without will dies. It may not have what you might call "expression of player skill" in terms of using it but I though it was more interesting from the enemies point of view as it changes the way you combat BCs if they have the research and energy needed to use it against you or not. When it comes to the raven I don't like the removal of auto turret for several reasons. Auto turret in my mind was always way better then what a large section of the community acted like it was. I feel people not liking auto turret stems from the fact the thing is bad in most large scale fights and PDD or seeker missile is better BUT auto turret was great in small scale fights/skirmishes or as harassment where the other spell where not as much. This means ravens could work on there own or in small groups with other units, in other words the exact opposite to a deathball. Now even tho recovery drone may very well be an interesting ability the lack of auto turret make it so the raven would need to be part of a bigger army more often as well never having a reason to break away as it can no longer harass. | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:33 vrumFondel wrote: XXXSmoke, i believe that developers of OneGoal are smart people and day when it would be limited selection in OneGoal or SC2 will never come. We have game with limitations of selection - BW so play there. They are smart people and its unfortunate that they cant do this because the mod has so many good ideas I feel that this would benefit the mod even more, because this is the one thing that nobody has tried with SC2 yet(SC2 BW does not count) I dont want to play BW anymore that game is done. I want to play sc2 and keep the progression of new units and everything, but given SC2s fails this IMO would be a big way to fix it. I will stop posting then as they have firmly stated it wont be put since Blizzard wouldnt make such a change. I personally think you guys should ditch blizz and just go your own route, but thats up to you guys. | ||
|
Zrana
United Kingdom698 Posts
I'm not arguing for limited selection or removal of MBS but i just wanted to make sure that making sc2 a game with appeal to the casual masses was not a design goal. | ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
Here is the thing that is easy to forget. SC2 is a commercial product first and foremost. it has to be, otherwise it wouldn't have been made to begin with. Regardless of marketing strategy, you need a ton of players to turn profit or have a particularly vibrant esport scene. LoL is free, colorful, and has a reasonably high skill cap. SC2 is hard, an interface that actively impedes making friends, and has no sense of meta progression. I know which game I play more. Any well made game should have something to appeal to casual masses, esports just should have a high (preferably impossibly high) skill ceiling. | ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
| ||
|
Doominator10
United States515 Posts
On January 04 2013 18:51 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: Also: Note, We have updated the main post to show a preview of our first Design Patch. :D :D :D | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On January 04 2013 16:42 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: Sorry Smoke, our hands are tied on unit selection and MBS, as well as pathing. We can persue alternatives like formation and unit spacing, but we simply can't go against something as fundamental as UI. We are looking at changes that Blizzard may be open to. Attacking the UI or a player's agency over their units is simply impossible. You are talking about something that is fundamental as economy. We intend to add difficulty and deep decision making to Macro to separate the good players from the great players. Toss Warp Gate is actually a good example of this. If you are good, you rally units from Gate Ways and then convert for a big push, then convert them back to gateways for standard production. If you are godlike, you can actually cycle gateways to warpgates, warp units in, then cycle the warp gates back to gateways, and convert a different cluster. The timings change with the number of gateways on the field, but you can effectively get the macro power and positioning of WoL warpgates...It just takes 250+ APM to macro. Our hope is to add or change Terran and Zerg macro mechanics to enable skilled plays and techniques to require that APM for optimal play at the top .01 percent of players. We want to do it without making the skill floor too high, which your changes enforce. SC2 has a high enough skill floor that it makes it hard to approach, which has been a losing strat against the low skill floor, high skill cieling of LoL. Despite LoL's many imbalances and terrible readability, it is accessible enough that it has a large enough following to dwarf SC2's entire viewer base two or three times over. Too be clear, we are ok with making the game harder at high levels. The difficulty coming from the UI is simply not fun or readable to any esport audience. Besides, why do it when you can make them real mechanics tied to art and theme? Match making isn't enough, players need feedback from the game itself to have fun. If you screw up a ton and don't do anything cool, why are you even playing the game? Lowering the skill floor is fine and good as long as it doesn't impact the skill ceiling. Why is that your goal? What exactly is so exciting about making macro difficult? Was BW a popular game due to the lack of MBS or was it a popular game due to the difficulties of controlling the units properly? To be honest, I think the future of competetive RTS relies on making game more DOTA'ish (i mean what DOTA was for wc3), by removing the macro concept. This is obviously a radical thought, and changes will/should only happen gradually. Personally (as a terran player) I would (assuming I could develop a mod/game) remove mules/planateries for the game as they have a negative effect on the gameplay, while also redesigning how the whole lift/off tech lab/reactor add on stuff works. This can be very frustrating often as units often tends to get blocked when you add the tech lab or the reactor, and it slows down the pace game (as a terran player we need to wait like 0.5 seconds for the building to lift before we can relocate it - this is a waste of an action that in my opinion should be used on controlling units). Making macro more difficult will increase the skill cap, but the skill cap could be increased by redesigning all units instead. As long as the units are easy to learn (but difficult to master) I believe this option is much much better than making macro more difficult to use optimally. On January 04 2013 13:23 Nyvis wrote: So you cancel all the OCDs of one battlecruiser with one usage of the "cancel" button. I really like the idea of the BC linking with it's troops to give them a buff, though. At this points, I'm mostly looking at small points of your idea ... For ledarsi, I somewhat agree on the turrets. They were of great design because space was a limiting factor, contrary to infested terrans, but I think using them is a bit hard while in combat because units get in the way of where you want to place them. Oh and if I read carefully, they didn't disappear, they are on reapers now. I don't know if the duration upgrade is still in the game, but you could use some in a lategame composition to control space while in battle, and harass outside of battles. EDIT : @hider : You still didn't answered what I think is the main concern. If the BC is a 5% or a 10% bonus incentive for microing, why make it a major piece of every engagement there is one in, with an ability with such a powerful feel? We don't want the 90% siege tanks/helions/widow mines completely overshadowed by the 10% BC micro. Plus, your idea sounds a lot more than a 10%, whatever the numbers would be. This is how I calculate/estimate the 5-10/% number; + The value that that the BC(s) will have on the outcome given the terran player outmicro's the opposing player. - The opportunity costs of not building more tanks/thors/mines - The opportunity cost of not micro'ing those units in the battle (but using the yamato cannon instead). So by removing the opportunity costs, the effect of the yamato cannon will be much less. I want the equation to average close to to 0 for most unit combinations (of course with the exception of the immortal and potentially corrupter/broodlord). On January 04 2013 16:02 XXXSmOke wrote: I disagree, You make some good points but your not seeing RTS as a whole. Heres the problems I see. 1) Of course we need cool battle micro, but that will not make us see the difference between the 50th best player and the 45th player. Even if you add multiple levels of dynamic micro, players will still be able to do everything else perfect macro wise. SO we will end up with games where we have 1-2 epic 1 minute battles and then the game is over. Maybe one guy out microed the other guy in one of those battles and won. Your going to end up with your 50 top players that all have the micro down about 95% and then its going to be just as sporadic as WoL. One day one guy is on fire, and he wins MLG. The next week the guy gets crushed at the GSL, because the 39th best player was having a really good day. Your basically cloning Peyton Manning and putting him on every NFL team. Yea maybe some of the newer quarterbacks(foreigners cough cough) cant be Peyton Manning, but when you have 100+ pro koreans playing 12 hours a day they get to a point where they can play a game like Onegoal or WoL and master the macro system with relative ease. Then all the game is decided on is quick battles. Instead You need to add limited selection for buildings and units. And make the pathing worse while also removing smart casting. The one thing I think that should stay is auto mine. That is the one thing that did not make sense in BW and should be kept. That is some unecessary interaction and I agree with you there. Once you implent this then by all means keep making battle micro more intersting, it will be the icing on the cake! By making the game as a whole harder you are accomplishing a few things that will help the game get to where it needs to be. 1) With limited selection it will be close to impossible to play a perfect game. There will be no skill ceiling. Pros will have to train harder, faster and stronger. You will see a much more rigged and structured top 50 players. With this change we will have a true flash or jaedong, where instead of being the flavor of the week they become. HOLY SHIT nobody can even come close to stopping this guy. His control is to good. This is what is exciting, people want to watch and witness un-human like behavior. They want to see Michael Phelps win 92123823 gold medals, They want to see Peyton Manning throw consistent perfect throws, they want to see Savior make the "weakest" race the unbeatable race even on T and P favored maps. You must create this excitement, or you will fail. 2) In regards to casuals(bronze-Plat, this is what match making is all about. Matching similiar skilled players vs each other so that no matter how high the skill cieling is they are playing somebody who is having the same problems. 3) In regards to diamond-master-GM players you are also helping them a lot. A problem that we see with this caliber of player is that they hit their general skill cap fast in SC2. Sure they are missing some small details that when added up makes the pros 81239283 better. But these players are experiencing is that they hit there skill ceiling quickly and then the game becomes stale and boring. There are also way to many games that are lost even when the player is mechanically worse than you. Those losses are infuriating and happen frequently in SC2. With a higher skill ceiling these losses will greatly disappear and we will see much of the true skilled players rising in their ranking. These players will never come close to hitting the skill ceiling but would enjoy something more to work towards. Like I said, your missing the RTS as a whole. Time spent battling makes up a small percentage of an average SC2 game. Just making it harder for this one minute will not create an exciting differant game. RTS is also about economy, the challenge of building an army, the challenge of moving a giant army, and then finally the battles. You need to increase all areas of the game, not just one. RTS should be fueled by mechanics and driven by strategy. SC2 is backwards and OneGoal will be the same unless you dramatically raise the skill cap in all areas. I think we are closer to each other regarding the end-goal of raising the mechanical skill gap than both of us are to the Onegoal mod developers (which seems to be more focussed on "decision-making"). But of course the measures we would take are very different. But let me ask you this; Assume you could design units (while keeping MBS and smartfire) that made the game just as difficult to master as BW was, wouldn't that make for a better game? On January 04 2013 13:45 ledarsi wrote: @Nyvis- I had missed that Reaper change. When did that happen? Not sure what I think about that- I will test it out extensively. I do have an idea about how to keep Recovery Drone in the game, though. How about adding it as an ability on the Medivac, which allows the Medivac to "grab" units from a distance and load them? Rather than moving the unit to the Medivac's position, it loads the unit into the Medivac (unsieging a tank when used on a sieged tank). If this ability could make dropping siege tanks with mech viable, this actually sounds really awesome (though it had to be a late game upgrade). | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
| ||
|
gCgCrypto
Germany297 Posts
On January 04 2013 18:51 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: Also: Note, We have updated the main post to show a preview of our first Design Patch. So just so i understand it correctly, you reverted the colosus to what it was in wings and BUFFED IT? Do i miss something here? The colosus is a design desaster in Wings: It has to stand in the middle of your army for maximum efficiency, thus enforcing deathballs, It punishes any splitmicro because of the way it deals damage, It forces the oponent into one specific hard counter and makes certain units entierly useless with its pure existance (Hydras ...) So you make a better alternative for the colosus only to revert it back to the old one ? (sorry if i misunderstood, i am referring to -Colossus now have a standard attack again that does 10x2 (+5x2 to light.) )I was not yet able to play One Goal because i am on EU so maby i am not seeing something but the Colosus imo should be completly redesigned. Even in HotS, what i played A LOT the colosus basicly kills you if you commit to hydras, regardless of speed, if you dont transition into Hive for Vipers ASAP. The rest of the Changes seem fine, i would not add new Units though, i doubt Blizzard would even concider adding new units that short before release (assuming One Goal will take a lot more time before you present it to Blizz) | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:14 gCgCrypto wrote: So just so i understand it correctly, you reverted the colosus to what it was in wings and BUFFED IT? Do i miss something here? The colosus is a design desaster in Wings: It has to stand in the middle of your army for maximum efficiency, thus enforcing deathballs, It punishes any splitmicro because of the way it deals damage, It forces the oponent into one specific hard counter and makes certain units entierly useless with its pure existance (Hydras ...) So you make a better alternative for the colosus only to revert it back to the old one ? (sorry if i misunderstood, i am referring to ) I was not yet able to play One Goal because i am on EU so maby i am not seeing something but the Colosus imo should be completly redesigned. Even in HotS, what i played A LOT the colosus basicly kills you if you commit to hydras, regardless of speed, if you dont transition into Hive for Vipers ASAP. The rest of the Changes seem fine, i would not add new Units though, i doubt Blizzard would even concider adding new units that short before release (assuming One Goal will take a lot more time before you present it to Blizz) Lol they added diamondback. Regarding the collosus, there is an explosion after it has attacked, which I honestly dislike as it still seems like a basic 1a unit, (though it now requires more skill to play against). I said this previously, but as long as anti air can hit it, it's goanna be boring. Also, I want to see collosus in warp prism; but as long as the opponent always have 10 vikings/corrupters out, thats just not going to happen. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
Perhaps just making the Colossus REALLLLLLYYYYYY slow might do it. I'm talking move speed 0.5 here, perhaps even less. This would also encourage using Warp Prisms with it (maybe even speed prisms) as it would be extremely vulnerable- especially out on the map on its own. It does encourage deathballing, but your deathball can only move as quickly as the core deathball unit, which would encourage splitting off other units to do other jobs like block expansions, pressure, or harass. Using a really slow colossus is intrinsically dangerous. Incredibly slow movement speed might make the Colossus so weak its damage and/or range might even be buffed. The Diamondback is an interesting surprise. I think it too belongs at the 2 supply weight class, with a cost, HP, and damage reduction to match, but I'll play with it before coming to any big conclusions. Idea: Diamondback as troop transport? Carries 4 cargo size of infantry, they cannot shoot out, but are not killed if the Diamondback is destroyed? Goes neatly with its shoot and move ability, and allows for cool mechanized infantry play using APC's, with diamondbacks as infantry support. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:36 ledarsi wrote: I agree the Colossus is a complete disaster of a unit, and there is no easy way to fix it without compromising the unit completely. Perhaps just making the Colossus REALLLLLLYYYYYY slow might do it. I'm talking move speed 0.5 here, perhaps even less. This would also encourage using Warp Prisms with it (maybe even speed prisms) as it would be extremely vulnerable- especially out on the map on its own. It does encourage deathballing, but your deathball can only move as quickly as the core deathball unit, which would encourage splitting off other units to do other jobs like block expansions, pressure, or harass. Using a really slow colossus is intrinsically dangerous. Incredibly slow movement speed might make the Colossus so weak its damage and/or range might even be buffed. I think a slow collosus is one option (at least worth testing). Though my prefered idea is to give it a linear laser attack ablity (which attacks in the same way as lurker attacked in BW - though slightly lower so most of the attack could be avoided with great micro). I would just add that as an abliity and combine that with a nerfed version of its normal attack. I believe this would encourage micro from both the protoss and the opposing player, as will as positional play/flanking with collosus in warp prism's etc. | ||
|
gCgCrypto
Germany297 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:26 Hider wrote: Lol they added diamondback. Regarding the collosus, there is an explosion after it has attacked, which I honestly dislike as it still seems like a basic 1a unit, (though it now requires more skill to play against). I said this previously, but as long as anti air can hit it, it's goanna be boring. Also, I want to see collosus in warp prism; but as long as the opponent always have 10 vikings/corrupters out, thats just not going to happen. Well yeah but the explosion thing is only after an upgrade so if i dont want my oponent to be able to micro against it i dont get the upgrade, easy! Honestly i have thought about it myself but fixing the colosus is not easy. Best thing i came up with is making it deal damage in a vertical line not horizontal. (Say it attack starts anywhere between Range 0 and 8 and then it goes 1 towards the colosus or 1 away) Like that the colosus would be most effective on the edges of your army so you´d need to spread out to protect it. Also now split micro can soft counter the colosus, great! As additional bonus you can play around with different downsides to the colosus. I though about sth like it is exactly like the current one while moving but cant attack and it "lowers" its "head", looses its weakness to air, its movement speed (gets really really slow) and gets the attack i was talking about. (It was easier to explain that to myself ^^) | ||
|
gCgCrypto
Germany297 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:46 Hider wrote: I think a slow collosus is one option (at least worth testing). Though my prefered idea is to give it a linear laser attack ablity (which attacks in the same way as lurker attacked in BW - though slightly lower so most of the attack could be avoided with great micro). I would just add that as an abliity and combine that with a nerfed version of its normal attack. I believe this would encourage micro from both the protoss and the opposing player, as will as positional play/flanking with collosus in warp prism's etc. welp, you came up with the exact same thing, only faster TT At least you explained that way better then i did :D | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
On January 04 2013 22:54 gCgCrypto wrote: welp, you came up with the exact same thing, only faster TT At least you explained that way better then i did :D Funny I think I have had that idea for 1½ year or so. I feel like this new collosus has so much potential and new ways of positioning/flanking that players could keep finding new ways of using the unit for a long time. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
The 6 supply colossus that is strong against big clumps of units dealing AoE damage is fundamentally a deathball unit. It is expensive, few in number, and counters everything it can attack, and is only countered by things it cannot shoot at. Which other units protect it from, which must accompany it. It's a universally strong unit countered by flying units- which is terrible design. Making a micro-Colossus, call it a "Strider," is another possible route. Making it 3 supply and much smaller, with a new type of attack. Make it collide with friendly ground units (and not air units). Remove its cliff walk. Remove its vulnerability to anti-air attacks, but make it considerably weaker. It would still be vulnerable to units like Banshees and Mutalisks, just not Vikings and Corruptors. It would need a completely new attack if miniaturized. I'm sure you guys have lots of ideas. A short time-delayed radial AOE bomb. Or perhaps a linear beam with excellent range that does friendly fire damage to units in the path. Perhaps a slow plasma bomb projectile that gets lobbed up and over onto the target, and has a huge AOE splash for relatively little damage, but persists for a significant duration with blue flames like a large, low-power psi storm with a cooldown of a few seconds. Could allow the Strider to fire manually at the ground to lead your shot or deny space with many different possible weapons. I would like to comment that I actually thought the Juggernaut Plating Marauder was a tremendous improvement over the Concussive Shell Marauder. I think that is a much better direction to take the Marauder. In fact, to play more in that direction, would OneGoal consider making the Marauder (or even all Barracks units) 1 supply and redesigning them to fit? The Marauder might be 65 HP, Medium type, and 6 (+6 Armored) damage at 5 range, built at the 1 supply weight class for 75m/25g, as a slightly larger Marine with greatly different characteristics. Just some food for thought that most game designers are unaware of- players don't find units interesting from their capabilities. People find units interesting from their limitations. Games are not made interesting by what you are allowed to do- games are created by defining what is not allowed. Cliffs make a game more interesting than the ability to ignore cliffs does. | ||
| ||
