EPTTerran tech lab/reactor positioning - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Comet702
China236 Posts
| ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
On July 01 2010 12:58 Comet702 wrote: yes, i have already found this problem in sc1, e.g. the radar of the command centor, so i totally agree with your idea Sometimes you don't even have the room to build your comsat beside the command center in BW lol. | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
On July 01 2010 12:12 DM20 wrote: Unless every building becomes a square there will be maps with spawns that are less than optimal. Wait, what buildings aren't squares? | ||
|
Sentient66
United States651 Posts
On July 01 2010 14:58 SichuanPanda wrote: Sometimes you don't even have the room to build your comsat beside the command center in BW lol. You do if you don't block it... | ||
|
Looky
United States1608 Posts
| ||
|
Kakisho
United States240 Posts
On July 01 2010 12:43 Logo wrote: Also it's a balance change, you could now build a reactor and a tech lab for 1 building and switch per cycle based on what you want to build. Right now there's a time cost to switching so you can't just optimize it completely. You could even use 1 tech lab between 2 structures to keep stuff going smoothly without losing time moving buildings around. A Reactor or Tech Lab is connected to the building on one side. If there is a barracks on both sides of it, why would that imply that it would be able to connect to the one that it was not built from? There would be no way for a building to have a reactor and techlab facing into it, either as when connected to one, you would lose the ability to make another. Additionally, this same problem occurs for Zerg when larva is on the opposite sides of the mineral fields, making like a .5 second longer period of time drones have to travel to harvest had the minerals simply been on the side where the larva spawned (bottom). This is a small problem that should be fixed. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35142 Posts
On July 01 2010 12:43 Logo wrote: The trade-off isn't worth it. You gain a small amount of positional balance, but you add to the dexterity requirements and make the process a lot more troublesome and annoying. If you land a building near two unused add-ons which one gets hooked up? The way I could see it working is like this.. Making the add-on: Choose the add-on you want to make Green wire frames(a la refinery) pop up on each side and you pick one. For landing on a spot with two available add-ons: Select land and target the unused add-on you want to use. Granted that would remove ability to send the building to hover over the add-on but who ever did that? OR Land the the building and neither of the add-ons attach, and the add-ons that could connect to the building have an ability to link them. Being able to hotswap add-ons would be pretty cool. | ||
|
KiF1rE
United States964 Posts
On July 01 2010 15:52 Gahlo wrote: Being able to hotswap add-ons would be pretty cool. probably would have a cool down, like gateways. the positional advantage from having a faster wall with an addon could potentially be huge in stopping proxies and fast lings etc... and has a huge huge impact on the current 3v3 map, where you can wall with 2 supply depots and a barracks+addon... if your double terran trying to wall off a triple 6 pool, its possible only in certain locations. as a 3rd supply depot is needed to seal it off... | ||
|
qoolqop
Sweden71 Posts
| ||
|
eScaper-tsunami
Canada313 Posts
I think he's referring to all races map spawn points in general not just build positions. Its like playing on home court. | ||
|
SiNiquity
United States734 Posts
| ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
| ||
|
ultratorr
Canada332 Posts
On July 01 2010 11:56 StupidFatHobbit wrote: While you're eliminating positional imbalances, let zerg choose what direction larva/queen pop out of via the drone rally point. That probably affects balance more than add-on position. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35142 Posts
On July 01 2010 17:36 KillerPlague wrote: would be crazy, because then swapping would take 0 seconds. as soon as you lift ur factory the starport adopts the addon rather than the 5 second float and switch. i dont like it I think the premise of this idea assumes that there are two models for the add-on, decided upon construction where add-ons built to the right of a building would only be able to attach to the right of buildings and visa versa. In this case you'd still need to play musical chairs if you want to apply it to a new building. | ||
|
Swede
New Zealand853 Posts
For all those who think this would mean having the ability to have two add-ons... THINK: On July 01 2010 15:42 Kakisho wrote: A Reactor or Tech Lab is connected to the building on one side. If there is a barracks on both sides of it, why would that imply that it would be able to connect to the one that it was not built from? There would be no way for a building to have a reactor and techlab facing into it, either as when connected to one, you would lose the ability to make another. Additionally, this same problem occurs for Zerg when larva is on the opposite sides of the mineral fields, making like a .5 second longer period of time drones have to travel to harvest had the minerals simply been on the side where the larva spawned (bottom). This is a small problem that should be fixed. Seeing as a lot of people will build add-ons without viewing their production facility, it would make sense to hotkey each placement (on the right or left of your building) so that this doesn't change. | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
Can't think of a similar orientation issue for protoss though. | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
The problem is only for the first buildings to block the ramp right? for me only this is a problem. so would be nice if they place addon only on one side and only connect to one side but if you press a key it switch the site... | ||
|
theSAiNT
United States726 Posts
On July 01 2010 12:43 Logo wrote: The trade-off isn't worth it. You gain a small amount of positional balance, but you add to the dexterity requirements and make the process a lot more troublesome and annoying. If you land a building near two unused add-ons which one gets hooked up? Also it's a balance change, you could now build a reactor and a tech lab for 1 building and switch per cycle based on what you want to build. Right now there's a time cost to switching so you can't just optimize it completely. You could even use 1 tech lab between 2 structures to keep stuff going smoothly without losing time moving buildings around. I agree with Logo: it's a tradeoff between balance and simplicity and I don't think it's worth it. At worst it is a minor positional imbalance not too different from the larvae spawning position for zerg. The proposed change would fix it but add quite a lot of additional complexity. More importantly, it might create new balance problems of its own as various people have suggested. It works well enough at it is and there are other issues Blizzard should really be looking in to. | ||
|
nepitolko
Slovakia32 Posts
Or if you are as protos reaper rushed and you scout it early(not early enought to kill scv) you can just block the tech lab and you dont need to worry about reapers or you will earn some more seconds to deal with it. I have seen a few games were drone bllock the addon to allow free runby for zerlings. Its part of the game. As some people have pointed out the bigger issue is the larva spawn.. | ||
|
weltraumMonster
Germany62 Posts
If you could dock the add on on both sides of the production building there would have to be some kind of mechanism that decides which add on you would connect to if you land your rax between two add ons, one on the left and one on the right... there would have to be some kind of pop up with a decide button (which would be very un starcraft like)... if it is just a priortiy that when there are two add ons then the rax will always connect to the right one, then there could be situations were a add on that has been on the left side of a destroyed rax and close to unbuilable terrain could become unusable when there is another add on nearby.... i hope someone understands this | ||
| ||
