What do you think about a Protoss a Gas Mechanic?

I can't even think of the words to describe it.

On December 16 2009 12:04 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
Check SCL for my input.

\

Well, "Lame" is a start, and so is "boring." Youre on the right track I think.

On December 16 2009 11:44 onmach wrote:
Why does it have to be a resource mechanic. Gas in particular is so boring. I can't think of anything more yawn worthy than a gas mechanic. Assimilators are supposed to sit there and look pretty and sometimes explode if the situation warrants.

Can't there be a mechanic that makes some units better, or allows you to tweak buildings, or something along that line? Or manipulating max energy sizes on casters or focusing shields from one unit type another. Or converting buildings from one mode to another similar to gateways. Or some unit back home that must be managed like a queen. Or just about anything really.

Pressing a button to make a probe return x+1 of some resource and glow for some period of time is so lame. I can't even think of the words to describe it.

On December 16 2009 10:01 Archerofaiur wrote:
In Zhydaris own words Blizzard is "quite interested" in the thread I started on BNet about giving Protoss a Gas Mechanic.

On December 16 2009 16:12 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:

Hahahaha that's rich.

On December 16 2009 17:12 wrote:
As long as its balanced why not... i really like that idea. What if every race had 3 mechanics?.. but could only use 1 at a time! that would leave for some good desision makeing.. such as 1 mineral mechanic, 1 gas mechanic, and 1 popluation mechanic.. but only 1 could be at any given time.

ex. zerg is low on population and instead of using its mineral mechanic.. it uses its population one and queen builds a "Nest of Death" or something that permantly increases its population by like 4 or something until its destroyed. after that that he can continue to go back to the mineral/gas mechanics when the queens energy is recovered.

On December 16 2009 10:16 majesty.k)seRapH wrote:
these macro mechanics all just feel too artificial to me
i really don't like any of them. this one isn't an exception.

On December 17 2009 11:21 edahl wrote:


EDIT: Or ... I'd be very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very careful. The principle of least astonishment SHOULD apply if they want it to be a good spectator sport. Imagine having to introduce 3 different gas mechanics, three different mining mechanics, three different macro mechanics every bloody time there is a match. Too much weird shit with the basic mechanics and you might lose some of SCs extreme simplicity: Mine minerals, get gas, build units, receive bacon. It works for BW.

On December 16 2009 23:07 Archerofaiur wrote:

lol brilliant!




Im not getting the joke unfortunately. I think a whole bunch of people are interpreting my posts as "Blizzards putting my idea in the game!!!!!11111" Thats not what I said. I said there were interested in this thread on BNET about protoss mechanics. He really did say that. That doesnt mean they ARE putting a gas mechanic in the game.

On December 17 2009 11:28 Archerofaiur wrote:


Imagine having to explain psi storm, siege tanks, muta micro, force field, creep movement, warp in.....................

On December 17 2009 11:39 edahl wrote:


Big flash, stuff dies. It's a tank, boom boom. Look, dangerous fliers. Oh shit, they just blocked off the ramp. Bad ground, can't build there. Oh, something "mounted", seems there's units coming.

There!
If too much things happen that doesn't have an immediately obvious interpretation, well, as a game developer (or a developer of a spectator sport) I'd be very aware that I may be doing something wrong, and I'd monitor the situation.
EDIT: If you don't play WoW, watch a few games of that to see the extremes of what I'm talking about. To some degree also true for WC3 I guess, but not nearly as much.

On December 17 2009 11:44 Archerofaiur wrote:



Mining robot drops from orbit.Mines.


How hard was that?

On December 17 2009 11:47 edahl wrote:


Well, if it's just that, then sure there's not much problem. But if it's only that one might ask ... "what's the point?"

On December 17 2009 11:56 Archerofaiur wrote:


The point of macro mechanics? There are several reasons but the big reason Dustin explained in the recent TL interview. They want to differentiate micro playstyles and macro playstyles. They want each race to have two different ways of being played.

On December 03 2009 16:02 Kennigit wrote:
TL: To follow that up, what types of challenges do you face when trying to balance the needs of the casual player versus the rage of hardcore players like in the progaming community. You had mentioned the macro mechanics being a big one.

DB: Sure that's definitely a big one – it's a place where we feel we can definitely do better but it then does break other systems. You know a great example I love reading on Teamliquid and elsewhere were not so much that you guys were missing clicks – some people said that and I didn't agree with that – but that we were missing the difference between a macro player and a micro player. That we were destroying the sense of style of the player. I could be playing a micro game and you could be playing a macro game with both the same race, and we are still playing a very different game from one another. And when I saw that I was like “Ohh!” I was opening my eyes like “Thanks! THERE IT IS! That's great! That's genius! That's exactly what we need to try to accomplish”.

If anything, this will probably just heighten the ceiling for good, solid management play.

On December 17 2009 12:24 fOscB.Sulik.SLR wrote:

Which is always good.

On December 17 2009 11:56 Archerofaiur wrote:


The point of macro mechanics? There are several reasons but the big reason Dustin explained in the recent TL interview. They want to differentiate micro playstyles and macro playstyles. They want each race to have two different ways of being played.

On December 17 2009 12:50 eXigent. wrote:


It seems like he doesnt really know what he is saying. Micro and Macro are not different types of playstyle, they are both needed in order to be decent at the game. Breaking them down into 2 different playstyles changes the game quite a bit. Also, it just doesnt seem to make much sense to state that you can play 2 different styles (micro or macro). There are more than 1 style of play for each race already, that utilizes both micro and macro together to accomplish their goal. Saying they should be seperated into playstyles just doesn't add up, nor make sense.

Also, how would they even stack up? A macro player will obviously win the game, because he is able to take map control, out produce and eventually just attack move to victory. The point is , micro and macro are used together to create playstyles, not on their own.

On December 17 2009 15:32 0neder wrote:
WARP IN IS A MACRO MECHANIC - IT WORKS PERFECTLY AND IS EASY TO BALANCE. NOTHING MORE IS REQUIRED.

On December 03 2009 16:02 Kennigit wrote:
TL: To follow that up, what types of challenges do you face when trying to balance the needs of the casual player versus the rage of hardcore players like in the progaming community. You had mentioned the macro mechanics being a big one.

DB: Sure that's definitely a big one – it's a place where we feel we can definitely do better but it then does break other systems. You know a great example I love reading on Teamliquid and elsewhere were not so much that you guys were missing clicks – some people said that and I didn't agree with that – but that we were missing the difference between a macro player and a micro player. That we were destroying the sense of style of the player. I could be playing a micro game and you could be playing a macro game with both the same race, and we are still playing a very different game from one another. And when I saw that I was like “Ohh!” I was opening my eyes like “Thanks! THERE IT IS! That's great! That's genius! That's exactly what we need to try to accomplish”.

On December 17 2009 22:39 edahl wrote:
I think the rebut to Mr. DB is made in an earlier reply to this thread.

On December 17 2009 22:44 Archerofaiur wrote:



Im not even going to try and refute the "Lead Designer of Starcraft 2 doesnt know what hes talking about" conspiracy theory. If thats where your starting from theres no way I can convince you otherwise :p

On December 17 2009 12:50 eXigent. wrote:
Micro and Macro are not different types of playstyle, they are both needed in order to be decent at the game. Breaking them down into 2 different playstyles changes the game quite a bit.

On December 17 2009 12:50 eXigent. wrote:
Also, it just doesnt seem to make much sense to state that you can play 2 different styles (micro or macro). There are more than 1 style of play for each race already, that utilizes both micro and macro together to accomplish their goal.
Saying they should be seperated into playstyles just doesn't add up, nor make sense.

On December 17 2009 12:50 eXigent. wrote:
Also, how would they even stack up? A macro player will obviously win the game, because he is able to take map control, out produce and eventually just attack move to victory. The point is , micro and macro are used together to create playstyles, not on their own.

On December 18 2009 03:53 789 wrote:
Yeah but at least with workers you have the choice to cut them for certain strategies, make your timing push or all in attack stronger at the cost of hurting yourself in the long run if it fails. I suppose you could say the same thing about the obelisk. It could be cut for all ins, but as soon as its made any tension or decisions are gone. You just spam proton charge.

The probes increase real mineral income, expansions increase potential mineral income. The macro mechanics would fall somewhere in between, not increasing actual mineral capacity (new fields) but merely making your current mining more efficient (as it does now). The difference is that you have to sacrifice actual minerals to do it instead of streamlining your economy at no real cost. The energy balance would make it so you cannot abuse this.

To make it more interesting, extra abilities (like sweep) could force you to decide if you want to use them instead.

The main problem with proton charge is it feels so artificial. Just a task to repeat every so often to increase resource intake.

On December 17 2009 13:02 edahl wrote:
Exactly. Adding artificial "macro mechanics" to "differentiate macro micro play styles". Sure, it's cute for an "eureka" but you have to consider the possibility that the eureka was based on false pretenses. It's like doing mathematics when you're drunk. It's fun at first, but you're probably wrong. The way it's going, I see nothing but one base zergs and APM-sinks. "Sorry".

On December 19 2009 06:15 Sentient66 wrote:
I had an idea for protoss macro. Make pylons have a slightly smaller power radius, and make it so that any production building (other than nexus) works 50% faster when it is powered by more than one pylon. This could create some interesting possibilities for timing pushes, as well as going for faster research/upgrades at the cost of extra minerals. What do you guys think of this?

On December 17 2009 11:07 Haemonculus wrote:
If there's going to be any gas mechanic, make it different for each race. All three races have their own distinct feel and storyline, so why not add something to expand upon that?

Terran: We ran out of gas? DRILL DEEPER!!!

The recent addition to the Kor'pulu sector, namely humans, have always been a bit wasteful. They go from planet to planet, hastily consuming resources without any thought as to their impact on the environment. When minerals run dry, they head elsewhere. When a gas vein dries up, they should drill deeper, or blast deeper! Allow terran players to spend a certain amount of minerals to replenish a certain amount of gas in their geyser once it is depleted.

Zerg: Biologically efficient!

The Zerg are not so much collecting and using this gas as a fuel. They're consuming it! The hatcheries probably inhale the stuff nigh constantly. It goes straight into the blood, helps run their little evil space bug minds, etc. How about a drone only takes half the gas from the extractor than it takes to the hatchery? So it grabs 4 gas from the extractor, and the Zerg player gains 8 gas as per usual. This could explain how the Zerg are more efficient than the clumsy Terrans, or the environmentally-friendly Protoss. Zerg gas geysers would last longer, but ultimately would run dry and end up "depleted" just like all other geysers.

Protoss: A good Protoss plants a Vespane tree for every one he cuts! ...or something like that!

The Protoss have the most advanced technology in the galaxy, (unless the Xel'naga show up that is). They strive to maintain a balance in the universe, and dislike the wasteful ways of the Terrans, and the all-consuming Zerg. They are very environmentally conscious, and would not want to take more from a world than what they can give back. So how about Assimilators slowly regenerate gas? No advantage in the short term, but a Protoss player will never quite run out of gas. His geysers will always slowly replenish themselves.



In this way we could make a little interesting mechanic which would create strategic decisions for at least one race, and further diversify the three armies. And add a little bit to the story while we're at it! Thoughts?