Honestly, I gave up on SC2 a while ago but if this kind of constructive stuff were going on while I was still a frustrated low-masters Terran I probably would have stuck around longer.

I think that you should change the name of the project though -- it seems that people are TL;DR'ing, getting entirely the wrong idea about what the project is about, and then cluttering the thread with useless dribble when it's clear that it is not the point of this to be an appointed dictatorship on balance, but rather a constructive forum to test/implement everyone's ideas.

ItWhoSpeaks

United States362 Posts

November 27 2012 00:45 GMT

#82

On November 27 2012 09:41 upperbound wrote:
Honestly, I gave up on SC2 a while ago but if this kind of constructive stuff were going on while I was still a frustrated low-masters Terran I probably would have stuck around longer.

I think that you should change the name of the project though -- it seems that people are TL;DR'ing, getting entirely the wrong idea about what the project is about, and then cluttering the thread with useless dribble when it's clear that it is not the point of this to be an appointed dictatorship on balance, but rather a constructive forum to test/implement everyone's ideas.

I totally agree, the name of the mod is clearly upsetting some people and more importantly, distracting from our goal. We are discussing name changes.

Vasoline73

United States7816 Posts

November 27 2012 08:09 GMT

#83

Nice idea and thanks for posting OP. It is cool to think about a game the community shapes.

Unshapely

140 Posts

November 27 2012 09:46 GMT

#84

Why don't you let the community here decide what the [new] name of the project should be? We'll at least feel a little more involved. It seems that many people have already dubbed you the TL.net designer.

Have you considered making a TL poll or some such thing -- to get everyone's opinion on a more suitable name?

P.S: (This question is really out of place but I've been meaning to ask this - are you of American origin?)

gCgCrypto

Germany297 Posts

November 27 2012 15:58 GMT

#85

I wish Blizzerd would just say something along the lines of " we apriciate what you are doing and when you are done testing some of your changes go ahead and send them to us and weel look at them"
Right now "i" as a pert of the community feel ignored by them. even Morrows post about forcefields has not even got a response by Blizzard. (And if it got one via provate mail etc they are simply dumb. SHOW THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU CARE WHAT WE ARE DOING PLEASE!)

MrF

United States320 Posts

November 27 2012 16:32 GMT

#86

I honestly don't think there is a huge problem with the game itself I think its just that RTS games in general are not very mass apealable, I mean think about it BW in korea aside, no RTS has really been a mainstream hit, only SC2 could claim to really have been a success in that way, the tournament scene was bigger than anything before it and more people bought the game and played online than any other RTS. Everyone who claims BW was such a success, it wasn't, only in korea was it huge no one else in the world really cared except a small cult following. SC2 in comparison was a vast success, the issue is that now with LoL being so hugely successful SC2s success is being overshadowed and stifled, but that may just be the way it is. Just remember people even though it seems like things are bad, SC2 was the biggest e-sport of all time and that's a pretty big success in my book.

ItWhoSpeaks

United States362 Posts

November 27 2012 20:45 GMT

#87

On November 27 2012 18:46 Unshapely wrote:
Why don't you let the community here decide what the [new] name of the project should be? We'll at least feel a little more involved. It seems that many people have already dubbed you the TL.net designer.

Have you considered making a TL poll or some such thing -- to get everyone's opinion on a more suitable name?

P.S: (This question is really out of place but I've been meaning to ask this - are you of American origin?)

We are actually talking about that right now! We will see about getting a poll up and running. If you have any thoughts on the matter, please email us at onevoicemod@gmail.com; we would love to know how we can do better.

I was raised in Montana and I went to college in Washington state. I currently reside in Redmond, WA.

gronnelg

Norway354 Posts

December 05 2012 13:02 GMT

#88

I might have missed the point of this thread (?), but I had an idea about the warp gate mechanic.

Or rather, it's my take on other peoples ideas.
One of the problems, is that it eliminates the defenders advantage.
Yet is an interesting and fun mechanic, at least as I see it.
So people have suggested various versions of limiting the warp-in potential of pylons, and implementing distance to nexus and such.

How about:
Pylons within a given range of a nexus, has normal warp-in like they do now (you need that to properly defend). However pylons (and warp prisms?) outside nexus range have a max warp-in, with cooldown.
E.g. a proxy pylon can only warp in 4 units, before it enters a refractory periode. This would still leave the potential for harass, but would make it harder to reinforce, and thus leave at least some defenders advantage.

Obviously you could just make several pylons side by side, but if you have to make, say 4 pylons, it would still take longer, and having clumps of 4 pylons here and there would be costly.