|
But queens already have that role in WOL/HOTS. Spawn larva = gives more larva
Deployed queens --> Gives more larva.
I don't think there is any real difference in terms of their roles, the mechanic just works in a different way.
Also, with my deploying Queens idea... you can store some in an Overlord, fly into the map, unload them, have the Overlord generate creep and have your Queens deploy on this creep. Insta unit generating base
Sorry won't happen with 99% probability in actual games. Stuff like that is just too complicated and you can get the same outcome (almost) with nydus network.
|
On March 30 2013 22:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Skill-based Economic Advantage
Does this mechanic allow players to express skill to gain economic advantage (Minerals or Gas)? How does it do this?
Good Example: Mule
First of all; I don't understand why mule is a good example of that? Mule is an extremely easy mechanic that the average platinum terran can use as well as korean GM's. Secondly, I think it is important that we make a clear distinction between mechanically demanding macro mechanics and "decision-oriented" macro mechanics. IMO there is no point in making macro challenging from a mechanical perspective just for the sake of it (no MBS, no automine and inject larva are examples of pointless macro challenges). Im not sure what your general opinion is on this topic. Personally I prefer to increase the mechanical skill cap by rewarding micro/multitasking more rather than "pointless macro clicking".
Show nested quote +
Back to Base
Does this mechanic encourage players to screen shift back to their base? How?
Good Example: Mule
I completely disagree with this one. I would take the game in the complete opposite direction --> Less Sim City and more MOBA (im not advocating to turn sc2 from an RTS into a Dota-clone, but if Sc2 currently is 50% Sim city and 50% dota, then I would prefer 60% dota and 40% sim city rather than the opposite). Basically I believe that looking at your base is a waste of time and quite boring. For instance when I see ultras as terrans, I need to go back in my base and lift off my rax's to change the reactor-addon to a techlab. This actually takes a like 4-5 seconds, and is IMO a complete waste of time that could be used for more exciting stuff such as loading up another dropship or micro'ing my marines against his infestors and lings. While landing mules is less time consuming than changing addons, and thus less of an evil IMO, it is still a waste of time - What does it add to a game when a terran player goes back to his back and lands 4 mules? Is it good for spectators? Is it fun to do as a player? I answer no to both those questions. Going back to the base can still be an mean to an end if it is a neccesary way of promoting an awesome element in the game, however it must IMO never be an end in it self. I believe that you probably added that "back-to-base" element as you believe its a part of RTS games.But I think that in order to improve games we need to be willing to innovate in the places where it is neccesary. The RTS genre can IMO be improved by adding fun stuff (strategical decisions and interesting mechanics) into the game and minimizing the amount of annoying stuff (pointless clicking).
Speaking for myself rather than the team, I believe this was tried in many RTS in the 2000's, most notably the Dawn of War and Command and Conquer franchises. The removal of macro lead to stale gameplay. DOTA actually substitutes traditional macro for a gold and xp micro based economic system which many would feel too radical for Starcraft 2. Macro can be a skill-intense and decision intense process as exemplified in chronoboost and warpgates.
Assault colonies
Assault colonies seems very interesting. But I still can't really figure out whether there is a "true decision involved". I mean aren't zerg players just going to put down an assault every time their queen gets 50 energy? And then they will use like one queen for spreading creep tumours (and the creep tumour spreading also involves "mindless clicking, though the nice thing about creep spread is that its at least visual way of promoting mechanical skills).
I share this concern as well and believe that the best way to create tension with a production advantage macro mechanic is an economic advantage mechanic.
|
Just to give an example of what I talk about regarding decisions. Here is how I (could imagine) the queen;
You can only have one queen per hatchery.
Abilities
- Inject Larva: You can set your queen to span larva at a hatchery. The queen will inject it automtically, but less efficient than in WOL/HOTS.
- Speed creep tumour; By deploying this tumour units will have increased movement speed on this type of creep (no other advantages).
- Defensive creep tumour - Units/structures on this type of creepreceives + 1 armor. However this tumour spreads it self very slowly, so it will primarily be used for defensive purposes.
- Instant spawn - Larva will spawn instantly with reduced HP.
- Modified version of Transfuse (not sure of exact implementation)
So the queen now have five different abilitties with various different pros and cons. Since you can only have 1 queen per hatch you now need to carefully decide how you use your energy. By deploying a speed creep tumour you will be able to spread your creep relatively fast which will benefit you if you want to abuse the immobility of the opponent in the mid/late game.
If you want to play safe/fear your opponent will timing attack you either want to deploy a defensive creep tumour and/or safe up energy for tranfuse. However, that can cost if you as you won't be able to spawn larva at the same time, thus there is a true decision involved.
That's basically how I imagine one can create a decisionbased macro mechanic.
|
One other point on Energy Tension. It is dependent upon the limitations of the total energy avalible to the player for that purpose. This is why at some point in the game (ie when the player has enough resources for many Queens and many Orbital Commands) that the Energy Tension on these units disapears. Therefore it is my belief that Energy Tension should be a early game and mid game goal.
|
Speaking for myself rather than the team, I believe this was tried in many RTS in the 2000's, most notably the Dawn of War and Command and Conquer franchises. The removal of macro lead to stale gameplay.
There are a lot more nuances in this such as;
1) Time wasn't the right one (for instance Microsoft had tablets 10+ years ago. Yet that didn't imply tablets couldn't be a succes 10+ years after.
2) Wrong implementation
3) Worse games
4) More drastic than I suggested (I only suggest relatively minor changes. you still build scvs and armies). My suggestion will deifnitely not lead to stale gameplay.
I think a larger case study is needed to use these two examples meaningfully.
Great example of what I like;
MBS as this make the game less back to base (as terran at least).
Please explain to me how mules are exciting.
|
So here is the fundimental tension in the Patch 3 Queen.
Remember, Queens cost gas currently, meaning that if you want a lot of them, you really cut into your early tech.
You can:
1. lay down 2 creep tumors and opt for a macro hatch in short order and work on getting a second queen. (Queens spawn with 50 energy, allowing you to get your creep under way much faster.) This is a more defensive macro opening because you are relying on queens for early defense so you can benefit from a flood of drone capable larva.
2. You can lay down an early Assault colony next to your natural and save all of your standard larva for drones and use lings for map control/light pressure. Then either drone up, or take a quick third, or produce a second queen. You have to choose.
Furthermore, WHERE you place Assault Colonies is important, it is also important WHEN you place them. You can bank up energy with queens in the mid game where you don't have a super strong economy QUITE yet. This provides a basic tension between creep spread and military production.
|
First of all; I don't understand why mule is a good example of that? Mule is an extremely easy mechanic that the average platinum terran can use as well as korean GM's.
Secondly, I think it is important that we make a clear distinction between mechanically demanding macro mechanics and "decision-oriented" macro mechanics. IMO there is no point in making macro challenging from a mechanical perspective just for the sake of it (no MBS, no automine and inject larva are examples of pointless macro challenges). Im not sure what your general opinion is on this topic. Personally I prefer to increase the mechanical skill cap by rewarding micro/multitasking more rather than "pointless macro clicking".
It BW it made an excellent challenge for professional players, but no modern audience wants to "click here every 30 seconds for more minerals" type of mechanic. It's uninviting, and visually not very compelling. So, our stance on it is that purely mechanical macro sabotages your casual audience, the lifeblood of an esport (because they make up the majority of the viewers).
To that point, it means that we need to create conditional macro mechanics. Chronoboost is conditional in the sense that you choosing when and where to use it is a big element of a strategy, and there are many options. Unlike inject, you are not so severely punished for missing a chrono by a few seconds, and unlike mule in most cases, there is constant choice in HOW you do it. For mule, the choice is mostly "MULE MULE MULE SCAN", and occasionally saving mules for an expansion as a conscious part of a long-term strategy.
I think the reason he held up mule as the better mechanic for giving an economic advantage is because water-tight mule timings have a very large effect on the midgame and early game timings, but, unlike inject, a noob can still get a decent reward from muling if they forget to do it for 20-40 seconds.
The skill for mule caps out pretty quickly, as you mention, and there isn't much choice beyond "do I need a scan?". While that does provide some powerful energy tension, we'd like there to be a bit more to it, like chronoboost offers.
Finally, while the skill does cap out rather fast, great players distinguish themselves by doing mule AND X and Y and Z with water tight timing. And the more "x, y, and z" are exciting skirmishes or harass, the better it is for spectators. They can SEE the advantage the person is gaining because enemies are dying, where a perfectly executed macro mechanic is much less well defined, visual, or engaging for a casual spectator. So, while the mule could use a little more mechanical challenge, it's one of the lower priorities over offering interesting choice.
As for "Back to Base", there are several schools of thought there. It can be one of the elements that help highly skilled players stand out, or it could be molasses in the veins of what should be a kinetic experience. As of this moment, back to base strikes me as a form of artificial difficulty that has it's uses at the highest levels of play, but is less engaging for a casual player base. The question is, which does SC2 need more of right now to be a more successful esport?
That is a question we are all working on answering.
|
To everyone posting ideas to solve these problems, thank you. I'm analyzing them help up to our list of criteria, and seeing how they might be improved. Glad to see all those involved.
|
On March 31 2013 04:54 FoxyMayhem wrote:Show nested quote +First of all; I don't understand why mule is a good example of that? Mule is an extremely easy mechanic that the average platinum terran can use as well as korean GM's.
Secondly, I think it is important that we make a clear distinction between mechanically demanding macro mechanics and "decision-oriented" macro mechanics. IMO there is no point in making macro challenging from a mechanical perspective just for the sake of it (no MBS, no automine and inject larva are examples of pointless macro challenges). Im not sure what your general opinion is on this topic. Personally I prefer to increase the mechanical skill cap by rewarding micro/multitasking more rather than "pointless macro clicking". It BW it made an excellent challenge for professional players, but no modern audience wants to "click here every 30 seconds for more minerals" type of mechanic. It's uninviting, and visually not very compelling. So, our stance on it is that purely mechanical macro sabotages your casual audience, the lifeblood of an esport (because they make up the majority of the viewers). To that point, it means that we need to create conditional macro mechanics. Chronoboost is conditional in the sense that you choosing when and where to use it is a big element of a strategy, and there are many options. Unlike inject, you are not so severely punished for missing a chrono by a few seconds, and unlike mule in most cases, there is constant choice in HOW you do it. For mule, the choice is mostly "MULE MULE MULE SCAN", and occasionally saving mules for an expansion as a conscious part of a long-term strategy. I think the reason he held up mule as the better mechanic for giving an economic advantage is because water-tight mule timings have a very large effect on the midgame and early game timings, but, unlike inject, a noob can still get a decent reward from muling if they forget to do it for 20-40 seconds. The skill for mule caps out pretty quickly, as you mention, and there isn't much choice beyond "do I need a scan?". While that does provide some powerful energy tension, we'd like there to be a bit more to it, like chronoboost offers. Finally, while the skill does cap out rather fast, great players distinguish themselves by doing mule AND X and Y and Z with water tight timing. And the more "x, y, and z" are exciting skirmishes or harass, the better it is for spectators. They can SEE the advantage the person is gaining because enemies are dying, where a perfectly executed macro mechanic is much less well defined, visual, or engaging for a casual spectator. So, while the mule could use a little more mechanical challenge, it's one of the lower priorities over offering interesting choice. As for "Back to Base", there are several schools of thought there. It can be one of the elements that help highly skilled players stand out, or it could be molasses in the veins of what should be a kinetic experience. As of this moment, back to base strikes me as a form of artificial difficulty that has it's uses at the highest levels of play, but is less engaging for a casual player base. The question is, which does SC2 need more of right now to be a more successful esport? That is a question we are all working on answering.
I think we basically agree here on almost everything here. However, you argue that the reasoning for bringing the mule up as a good example is that it doesn't punish players for making small mistakes which is easy to do at lower levels of play. However if thats the only good thing about the mule, then we could just as well remove it (and compensate terrans in other ways to balance the game). This won't effect low level players and higher level players never really cared about it in the first place (in terms of mechanically skills). So if we only look at mechanical skills, then this isn't really a good example. I think you previously brought up the argument that we should promote skills which were visually appealing to the audience, and I believe that mules fail in that regard.
Whenever I evalate whether an ability/macro mechanic/unit promotes skills in a visually appealing way, I always try and remember if I ever have heard any caster go bananas over how a player has managed to use it in succesful way, and I can't remember a caster every saying that player x is very good at landing mules (in an exciting voice). Some times casters praises larva inject, but its mostly in a very monotone voice, which means that its not that exciting after all (which is why I don't believe that larva inject should be mechanically challenging).
Creep spread is kinda the only macro mechanic I can think of which can excite casters (though that was mostly pre queen range buff).
But that is basically the reason for why I want to make most macro mechanics easier (in terms of mechanics) and instead increase the skillcap by makings very difficult to use optimally and give players a variety of ways which they can outmultitask their opponent.
Assault collonies
I think assault collonies (as itwhospeaks points out) will offer more choices in the early game (like will you spend the first energy on creep spread or collonies, and as the queen costs gas there is a decision involved on when to build the queen). As Archerofaiur points out, macro-decisions will probably only be relevant in the early to midgame, so I am aware of the fact that designing macromechanics which are relevant throughout most of the game is difficult.
However, I would still like to see more interesting choices on how to use the queen in the midgame. After the 10 minute mark it seems to me that most of the decisions related to the queen(s) are very similar to the decisions you have to take in HOTS.
Lets also remember that assault collonies actually remove a large decision in the game; Should I build drones or army units? I wonder whether it is reallly neccesary to remove that decision from the game.
In return there is now a decision involved on how to position the assault collonies. I need to ask for specific examples of how that can be very relevant in a real game, and please explain how this will signifcantly differ from the decision terrans has to take when they need to decide where to build suply depots (because I don't believe that is a very interesting "decision-mechanic").
|
On March 31 2013 06:49 Hider wrote:
Lets also remember that assault collonies actually remove a large decision in the game; Should I build drones or army units? I wonder whether it is really neccesary to remove that decision from the game.
Valid point.
Hider i am curious, if we remove the back to base "perform task to get more economy/production" why not just remove the whole macro mechanic system? What function, if any do u think these macro mechanics fills.
|
Discussion is good and all but you guys should jump on and play sometime! Im on the channel a lot and i barely see anyone on 
|
On March 31 2013 09:09 da_head wrote:Discussion is good and all but you guys should jump on and play sometime! Im on the channel a lot and i barely see anyone on
Message me when I'm on and I would be more than willing to play.
|
|
|
On March 31 2013 08:38 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2013 06:49 Hider wrote:
Lets also remember that assault collonies actually remove a large decision in the game; Should I build drones or army units? I wonder whether it is really neccesary to remove that decision from the game.
Valid point. Hider i am curious, if we remove the back to base "perform task to get more economy/production" why not just remove the whole macro mechanic system? What function, if any do u think these macro mechanics fills.
I never advocated to remove back-to-base. Rather I advocated to minimize it. That was why I talked about mean-to-an end rather an end itself. For instance I don't advocate to remove chrono boost as its a decent decision macro mechanic. But the reason for CB working well is the choices it offers, not the fact that you have to back to the base.
But I think everytime we identifiy a mechanic where the players "wastes" time in their base for no "real" decision-oriented mechanic, then we should try to see if we can come up a solution to change it (for instance I think the addon system could use a redesign, that it will be quite complicated so I don't advocate to change that atm).
|
something that occurred to me while thinking about this mod today... the queen has replaced the hydralisk essentially, and i think that's a big barrier to really finding a good place for the hydralisk. You could almost just remove the hydralisk and have the queen take on its role more and more as you tech up. like, range upgrade at lair, which would hopefully alleviate some of the complaints about range 5 queens making zerg too impenetrable to harass in the early game, then have a movement speed off creep upgrade at hive cos this is around the time you'd be wanting to move them up to the front lines anyway and you can afford macro hatches to take the place of their injects, and it's close to the time you could get hydras with both upgrades anyway. that way the queen could be balanced like an actual unit. if it was balanceable this way, you could even go back to the way blizzard intended to do it initially, with queens having a morph unlocked at lair and second from that unit at hive. this way, at hatchery tech it's a unit somewhat like it is now, maybe even a little weaker, filling a hybrid of roles including the role needed from a 1.5 hydralisk, but only for defensive purposes and slower. then at lair you can begin morphing the ones you don't need for injects into lair queens (probably after an upgrade at the spawning pool or somewhere, like lurker aspect research). you could probably even remove inject larvae from this unit and replace it with something else, and then its increased range (and probably modest improvements in other stats) makes it something like the first appreciable batch of hydralisks you'd be getting out in starcraft 2 as we know it. it gets better defensively, and in creative builds can play a limited role off creep.
spoiler'd because of HotS campaign references:
+ Show Spoiler +for flavor it can do something kind of like the broodmother in the third level of the protoss did where the new model was slightly bigger and the model was a little more ornate each time. it could go something like the current multiplayer queen model for hatch queen into a slightly bigger version of the swarm queen model for the lair queen (i guess it could be called swarm queen now that i think of it) into a slightly bigger broodmother model like zagara in the first char mission or the broodmother in the third protoss mission (which could be called broodmother.) think of it kind of like how pokemon with three evolutions tend to change visually!
all morphs except maybe possibly the broodmother should have creep tumor spawning, so as to keep the task of creep spreading up front and part of the action as the game gets into the later stages, and all morphs should probably have some version of transfuse. another sort of ancillary idea i had was to have the queen spawn units of some sort by laying eggs (+ Show Spoiler +pretty much just like the broodmother in the third level of the kaldir missions... i should probably learn her name if i'm going to keep talking about her
my only concern about all this is that by making the queen such an attractive unit, it will force players to make them almost every single game. i don't think that necessarily has to be the case, or is even necessarily a bad thing, but as was mentioned about this mod, a queen that takes gas takes it from upgrades, and from techier units like mutas, infestors, swarmhosts, broodlords and ultras that give you the power even this version of the queen couldn't provide. i just think on paper at least it solves a lot of problems and frees up other zerg units (like the roach and swarm host) to further differentiate and fill more varied and robustly defined roles. having one core unit be the race's only ground-to-air isn't anything new, anyway - the hydralisk was exactly that in brood war. the difference now is the roach and queen step on the brood war hydra's toes far too much for it to ever be a really well-defined unit. the only problem with my idea IMO (except for any balance subtleties i'm not grasping) is that removing the hydra or reducing it to a role as one of the SC2 zerg race's many summonables is nostalgic sacrilege for fans of SC1.
|
Gascost of the queen
The queen should definitely not cost gas ! Zerg needs it for mobile early anti-air and creep spread.
How should zerg defend against early drops , mothershipcore, oracles ? Terran for example gets with the
spacemarine cheap mass producible tier 1 units which cost no gas. I know the gameplay is designt asymetric,
but not as asymmetric as this intents. Also nerfing the boost mechanic of the zerg (injecting larva with the queen)
without nerfing chronoboost or mule seems a little bit onesided, don't y think ?
the min-max theory
Don't fix things which are not broken. And don't cripple zerg gameplay when there is no need for.
With nerfs you should use the min-max theory. Use the less necessary nerfs to balance it as possible.
Try instead balancing it like that:
If zerg is in something 2 good, give the other race an interesting mechanic/unit to keep up with that, instead of nerfing zerg.
The larva inject is way less nobish than droping mules.If you forget to inject or dont have the apm to do that, your gameplay suffers much. Keep in mind that the zerg drones become buildings and defendstructures (spore,spine) and that zerg attack units and drones are made out of the same larva. So you have a constant loss of your drones by building structures.
Terrans boost mechanic is build to correct gameplay errors:
-Getting supply blocked , no problem just drop a supply depot from space.
-Oh man i have no mins, wow i have much energy . I really should fly a command center to the goldexpansion and drop 8 mules,....
If zerg dont uses its energy from the queens then they could not benefit form their boost mechanic
in seconds, like terran can do it with mass mule drops at the gold expansion. The scaling of the mechanic is much different.
So don't treat things which are different, the same !
Dont change everything at once
Don't try to change everything at once , develop really god ideas like you did with:
-allowing roach to morph into swarmhost and boosting roach speed and healing under ground
This was a really good idea because it made the unit actually useful and now people play with the unit.
And then stick with this few very good ideas to watch how the player use them and if the gameplay stabilize
then put new ideas in the game.The Reason why most hots units are so boring is because the threw every
unit idea in the game not only the good ones. And then they had so much new stuff at once
that they weren't able to trace back balancing issues.
Other Topic:
Back to Base is a key gamplay component of the game . Its a very good one , because it raises the skillcap.
The key ability which separates a good from a bad player are:
-Decision Making/calculating army strength
-apm
so if people getting better with apm they need some things to do outside of managing the army and attacking.
To make the game more dimensional and scalable , of course should they go back to base and have something 2 do their which they can benefit from ,if they have the apm requiert.
So don't change Back to Base . Its very necessary.
|
Back to Base is a key gamplay component of the game . Its a very good one , because it raises the skillcap.
The key ability which separates a good from a bad player are:
-Decision Making/calculating army strength
-apm
so if people getting better with apm they need some things to do outside of managing the army and attacking.
To make the game more dimensional and scalable , of course should they go back to base and have something 2 do their which they can benefit from ,if they have the apm requiert.
So don't change Back to Base . Its very necessary.
Hey please make sure that you read all of my posts carefully. I already explained why I think back-to-base is a bad way of promoting mechanically skills and how we instead should go about raising the skill cap.
|
On March 31 2013 22:18 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Back to Base is a key gamplay component of the game . Its a very good one , because it raises the skillcap.
The key ability which separates a good from a bad player are:
-Decision Making/calculating army strength
-apm
so if people getting better with apm they need some things to do outside of managing the army and attacking.
To make the game more dimensional and scalable , of course should they go back to base and have something 2 do their which they can benefit from ,if they have the apm requiert.
So don't change Back to Base . Its very necessary. Hey please make sure that you read all of my posts carefully. I already explained why I think back-to-base is a bad way of promoting mechanically skills and how we instead should go about raising the skill cap.
People are allowed to disagree with you and think things are more or less important than you think they are.
I don't want an army fight game, that's not the point of starcraft.
People can read you and not agree instantly with you views.
|
On March 31 2013 23:48 Nyvis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2013 22:18 Hider wrote:Back to Base is a key gamplay component of the game . Its a very good one , because it raises the skillcap.
The key ability which separates a good from a bad player are:
-Decision Making/calculating army strength
-apm
so if people getting better with apm they need some things to do outside of managing the army and attacking.
To make the game more dimensional and scalable , of course should they go back to base and have something 2 do their which they can benefit from ,if they have the apm requiert.
So don't change Back to Base . Its very necessary. Hey please make sure that you read all of my posts carefully. I already explained why I think back-to-base is a bad way of promoting mechanically skills and how we instead should go about raising the skill cap. People are allowed to disagree with you and think things are more or less important than you think they are. I don't want an army fight game, that's not the point of starcraft. People can read you and not agree instantly with you views.
There is a difference between disagreeing and not understanding/having read my arguments. Also there is a difference betwen me writing "Why I think its a bad idea (which I did), and me writing "why that is a bad idea". I think it was pretty obivious that I expressed an opinion in the above post.
But basically this is what happened;
Me: Back-to-base is a bad way of increasing the skill cap because x and y.
Him: Back-to-base is good because it increases the skill cap.
So while he is welcome to disagree with me, he needs to argue why it is a better of increasing the skill ceiling than making units/abilities more difficult to master.
I think everything goes back to whether something is visually appealing or not. Is it visually appealing that a player goes back to his base? Obiviously the answer is no as spectators can't see that.
So that must imply that you disagree with me and (at least thats how I interpret him) Foxymayhems opinion on making units/abilities visually appealing. Please explain to me why you don't think that should be a neccesitty.
Furthermore I would like you to explain what you think about removing MBS. Do you support that idea as it will have the sole purpose of increasing base-to-base
|
On April 01 2013 00:13 Hider wrote:
On March 31 2013 23:48 Nyvis wrote:Show nested quote +Back to Base is a key gamplay component of the game . Its a very good one , because it raises the skillcap.
The key ability which separates a good from a bad player are:
-Decision Making/calculating army strength
-apm
so if people getting better with apm they need some things to do outside of managing the army and attacking.
To make the game more dimensional and scalable , of course should they go back to base and have something 2 do their which they can benefit from ,if they have the apm requiert.
So don't change Back to Base . Its very necessary. Hey please make sure that you read all of my posts carefully. I already explained why I think back-to-base is a bad way of promoting mechanically skills and how we instead should go about raising the skill cap.
People are allowed to disagree with you and think things are more or less important than you think they are.
I don't want an army fight game, that's not the point of starcraft.
People can read you and not agree instantly with you views.
There is a difference between disagreeing and not understanding/having read my arguments. Also there is a difference betwen me writing "Why I think its a bad idea (which I did), and me writing "why that is a bad idea". I think it was pretty obivious that I expressed an opinion in the above post.
I have read and understood your post.
I have just a different opinion than you.
Its a matter of different taste.
Me and many other players like some simcity in this game to make it more dimensional.
We like to go back to our bases from time to time to upgrade them.
And we like to have some gameplaymechanics which representate this part of the gameplay.
Sorry for that , but different people have different tastes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
