|
On February 10 2010 05:38 Archerofaiur wrote: [green]Monolith Upgraded from Nexus for 200min 300 gas 100 build time Has 250 more hp and 250 more shields Can Build Mothership i'm not sure what the 250 extra minerals/shields are going to do, the cost for an early game build order deviation is insane, not even hive costs 300 gas (or takes 100 seconds for that matter if i remember correctly) By all means. Suggest what values you think appropriate.
extra supply is debatable enough to not have a clear answer as to whether it's useful or not, but what is a power radius going to give? (ignoring the arbitrary value of what "2" really means) it's too late for any time of forge expand sim city unless you're assuming it's for warp in of mass stuff. even then i can't see anyone using that over just stacking mass pylons like most people do now anyway I think Extra Supply will be much more useful on the Protoss then Terran considering terran have mule.
extractors having 3 on gas has nothing to do with gas. it's the map based distance between the starting point and the geyser. can't remember the game but there have been a few times where flash did a build on longinus that used 4 on gas because of the map. even assuming it wasn't distance based, what you're proposing is that 2 could go in at the same time (given the same distance) which would further mean that you could put 6 on gas.
The terms 3 and 4 was the easiest way to clarify how i would increase the speed of gas production. I know how gas works. the point i was making is that you're just throwing out ideas without really thinking ahead (no offense) you didn't even bother to equivocate the cost roughly to that of the zerg/terran "mechanic"
impossible to say anything about the supply because there's no real equivalent right now.
as for the gas, it would have to have some equal counterpart for zerg/terran. that's an insane tech advantage or they'd have to rebalance the minerals/gas at each cluster and/or rebalance how it's gathered all together. too much work to just build around this mechanic
|
On February 09 2010 04:11 lunar3force wrote: Why is it so hard for them to just tell what new macro is insted tease us with silly updates? Yeah, this a big load of fail. It's like telling us, 'guys! The primary Zerg caster, the Infestor, has a new spell! We're not going to tell you what it is!'
|
On February 10 2010 05:45 wrags wrote: the point i was making is that you're just throwing out ideas without really thinking ahead (no offense) you didn't even bother to equivocate the cost roughly to that of the zerg/terran "mechanic"
You obviously dont know how I theorycraft. This is what I call the rough draft stage. You throw numbers out their and then wait for people like you to say "hey that seems high maybe this is better for this reason...."
impossible to say anything about the supply because there's no real equivalent right now.
See below
as for the gas, it would have to have some equal counterpart for zerg/terran. that's an insane tech advantage or they'd have to rebalance the minerals/gas at each cluster and/or rebalance how it's gathered all together. too much work to just build around this mechanic
As Blizzard has said multiple times about these macro mechanic, Different does not equal imbalanced. The races are allowed to have different macro advantages.
|
I've had some qualms about this for a while, but I really don't think that energy-based macro mechanics are going to work well. First of all, energy is a resource that is self-replenishing, that is, it's not a resource whose rate of collection you can directly affect. Even if there is so-called "energy tension" it's just not the same as a true resource-based macro decision, as a macro decision should be. A "macro mechanic", whatever it may be, should be something associated with a tangible, resource cost rather than with a cost in something like energy, which is outside of what "macro" is traditionally associated with. Most of all, a "macro mechanic" should be a temporary resource expense to gain a later advantage in tech, income, or unit production.
Terran:
Right now, people herald the Terran macro mechanic as sharing tension with supply and scan. In practice, this is rarely the case. I won't get into the math here, but resource-wise the MULE is simply too great of an advantage to forego for the Orbital Command's other abilities. There is no tension with the other energy-based abilities because a player could simply build supply depots and acquire other forms of detection instead of foregoing the MULE's massive economic benefit. Thus, the MULE becomes a click-sink. The only real tension I can imagine is whether to build an Orbital Command or Planetary Fortress at an expansion. That is a true "macro mechanic" because there is a resource-based macro decision to opt for either another MULE producing base or extra health and protection. It is also not a click-sink. My suggested change to the MULE would be to focus instead on the natural tension between building a planetary fortress or an orbital command. Remove all superfluous abilities from the orbital command besides scan, and instead create a natural economic advantage to having an orbital command at a significant INITIAL resource cost. Perhaps SCVs that mine from it will mine slightly faster. Perhaps somehow integrate the MULE but implement it differently so that it's not simply a click-sink. It is these natural tensions and resource-based decisions that should ultimately define a "macro mechanic", not something artificially imposed on the player.
Zerg:
It doesn't need to be said that the queen's macro mechanic is also usually a no-brainer. Who would forego extra larva at basically no expense? Energy is such a flimsy thing to base a "macro mechanic" on. The queen's ability amounts to simple larva spam. Because Zerg macro revolves around achieving drone saturation before shifting into full army production, the macro mechanic should follow suit. Instead of generating artificial "energy tension", it would be best if the mechanic was aligned with natural tensions that occur in the game. For example, there is tension between using larvae to produce an army and saturating bases with drones. Then, there is also tension between using drones to mine and using them to create structures (this tension applies mostly in early-to-mid-game situations). In addition, there is a third tension for creating overlords with larvae. Right now, the queen's ability caters to all forms of tension by creating extra larvae for a simple energy expense. It is for this reason that this macro mechanic is something that will be spammed. Even applying some sort of advantage to the creep (besides the speed boost) and creating a use for the queen's other abilities does not fix the underlying problem with the mechanic.
Protoss:
Now Protoss is receiving the first macro makeover by attaching its mechanics to the Nexus. Why I view this as an immediate improvement is that it means that an Obelisk does not need to be present at every expansion, making the macro mechanic much more integrated into the economic system. Hopefully, this new mechanic will take advantage of natural macro tensions between army and expansion and tech, thus completely integrating it into the existing framework of Starcraft 2 macromanagement.
Too Long Didn't Read Version:
A "macro mechanic" should be a temporary RESOURCE expense to gain a later advantage in tech, income, or unit production. Also, a good "macro mechanic" should be modeled with natural economic tensions in mind and avoid creating artificial tension instead.
|
To be honest, i completely forgot about the stupid useless +supply ability of the orbital command. I think people are under-rating scan, and how often it will need to be used. missile turrets don't give detect anymore, and I don't even know what the terran detection unit is.
That aside however, they need to improve the supply ability to be actually useful, I can't think of anything right now for it, but if I come up with something I'll throw it into this thread.
|
If you look at the resource pathways supply is limited by minerals. Mules translate into more minerals. If supply boost was in competion with say gas (which cant translate into supply) their would theoretically be greater tension.
Which is why I vote for giving Protoss gas and supply advantages in competition with each other. More units or better units?
|
I'm saying scan should not be in competition with MULE at all. Scan should be used for detection, as usual, and the Terran macro mechanic shouldn't attempt to create an artificial tension with it. The additional supply ability is not particularly useful, but I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was not something that directly competes with the Terran macro mechanic. Again, energy shouldn't be associated with macro because macro involves resource flow, tech, and unit production. Energy tension is very artificially done and shouldn't be the main focus here.
Supply is never limited by minerals if you remember to build pylons or supply depots at the correct supply levels. Mineral/gas tension is not advised as it can lead to purely situational use.
|
On February 09 2010 04:05 Ziph wrote: I seriously Don't give a fuck anymore about all these vague updates and shit. Just give us a goddamn Beta ffs. Thank you. My sentiments exactly, about time someone said it.
|
|
|
|