EPTThe Power of the Mule. - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Chronopolis
Canada1484 Posts
| ||
|
kidcrash
United States620 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:49 VanGarde wrote: Nerfing a core economy mechanic like the MULE would be the dumbest thing blizzard could do at this point in the game. Anyone who do not realize just how huge the effects are even from slight changes to economy mechanics should get off balance discussions right now. From a design point of view it would be completely pointless to nerf the mule because the effects would be so wide and across the entire length of the game that it is nearly impossible to analyze it correctly. But anyway, its really entertaining to see how zerg having issues with terran early game can cause this mass hysteria where everyone is seeing the devil around the corner. Suddently every single terran unit/building is OP. I just await the threads on how supply depots are imba now. There are unfortunately way too many wanna-be game designers on these forums who sadly do not understand how the game works even at the most superficial level. The great thing about implementing a cool down on the mule call down ability is, you never have worry about this argument. Just remember to call down your mules on time and everything is returned to status quo. The player still has 100% control over any short-comings. So no, the effects would not be wide-spread, it would simply place more onus on the player to perform instead of providing them with a huge cushion for their mistakes. | ||
|
AssuredVacancy
United States1167 Posts
| ||
|
oxxo
988 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:59 kidcrash wrote: The great thing about implementing a cool down on the mule call down ability is, you never have worry about this argument. Just remember to call down your mules on time and everything is returned to status quo. The player still has 100% control over any short-comings. So no, the effects would not be wide-spread, it would simply place more onus on the player to perform instead of providing them with a huge cushion huge for their mistakes. Except it IS a big deal because forcing players to MULE every time takes everything out of the whole scan vs MULE idea. MULE is more than fine. The whole 'T is super OP' bandwagon gets more and more ridiculous everyday. Pretty much every unit and every mechanic is complained about now. | ||
|
me_viet
Australia1350 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:49 VanGarde wrote: Nerfing a core economy mechanic like the MULE would be the dumbest thing blizzard could do at this point in the game. Anyone who do not realize just how huge the effects are even from slight changes to economy mechanics should get off balance discussions right now. From a design point of view it would be completely pointless to nerf the mule because the effects would be so wide and across the entire length of the game that it is nearly impossible to analyze it correctly. But anyway, its really entertaining to see how zerg having issues with terran early game can cause this mass hysteria where everyone is seeing the devil around the corner. Suddently every single terran unit/building is OP. I just await the threads on how supply depots are imba now. There are unfortunately way too many wanna-be game designers on these forums who sadly do not understand how the game works even at the most superficial level. Supply Depots ARE imba =P How is it fair that you can wall-off completely and still have the option of moving out with all possible units? Toss can't wall-off completely. If they wall-off with gate + core or 2gate, it means they can't go immortals and have to research blink for all stalkers in-base to get out, or existing stalkers to get in to defend against drops. Just stfu, ppls like you who just comes in here and is condescending to all other posters in a discussion forum thinking they're top shit gets me on edge. What are your credentials? ARE YOU a blizzard game designer? ARE you even a game designer at all? DO you even play the game? Are you even out of puberty yet? Be constructive in a forum. Provide evidence. "blah blah blah you're all wanna-be game designers and have no clue" is just downright bm. For all we know, 10yrs from now we can look back and say "wow, mules were imba back then, how on earth did any1 beat Terran?" | ||
|
Xyik
Canada728 Posts
| ||
|
VanGarde
Sweden755 Posts
On September 17 2010 13:59 kidcrash wrote: The great thing about implementing a cool down on the mule call down ability is, you never have worry about this argument. Just remember to call down your mules on time and everything is returned to status quo. The player still has 100% control over any short-comings. So no, the effects would not be wide-spread, it would simply place more onus on the player to perform instead of providing them with a huge cushion huge for their mistakes. That argument is incorrect and based on either faulty logic or understanding of the race. You are just assuming that you always want to call down a mule on 50 energy like a robot. Which is not at all always the case. There are plenty of situations, especially in TvT where you want to save up energy for scans, then if you realize that you do not need the scans you call down two mules. A cooldown just dumbs down the gameplay. | ||
|
Nu11
Canada167 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:02 oxxo wrote: Except it IS a big deal because forcing players to MULE every time takes everything out of the whole scan vs MULE idea. MULE is more than fine. The whole 'T is super OP' bandwagon gets more and more ridiculous everyday. Pretty much every unit and every mechanic is complained about now. In relation to your supply depot comment I believe they are pretty op. Terran is the race with the most power to be aggressive early and the most power to turtle and because of the lowering and dropping of supply depots they can do both. It's kinda ridiculous. Also about people in this thread commenting about how gas is the game decider, that is only true for P/Z. Remember, not only do you have the crazy strong marines you have _another_ mineral dump in the hellions. Marine hellion can kill a lot of units. | ||
|
Slivered Skin
Canada347 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:03 me_viet wrote: Just stfu, ppls like you who just comes in here and is condescending to all other posters in a discussion forum thinking they're top shit gets me on edge. What are your credentials? ARE YOU a blizzard game designer? ARE you even a game designer at all? DO you even play the game? Are you even out of puberty yet? Be constructive in a forum. Provide evidence. "blah blah blah you're all wanna-be game designers and have no clue" is just downright bm. For all we know, 10yrs from now we can look back and say "wow, mules were imba back then, how on earth did any1 beat Terran?" Woah, calm down there, mate. He's entitled to his own opinions, and your entitled to yours. I'm sure that we don't have to resort to personal attacks against someone's age to get a point across. And you know...I'm pretty sure he has a point about the whole hysteria thing going on. Being a zerg player myself, I'm rather annoyed at the number of people fussing about imbalance when the replay clearly shows that they lost because, well, they weren't as good a player. I'm going to reiterate the point made many times beforehand, and state that a cooldown on MULE would be fantastic. It would allow good players to keep up a steady stream of MULEs while preventing them (or lesser players) from spamming MULEs at a new expansion or one recently shut down by well-managed harass. It just makes it so much less rewarding to kill SCVs with mutas when the terran player doesn't even take an economy hit because of all the MULEs he just whipped up out of nowhere. The number of minerals it gathers, however, can most likely stay the same. The same number of minerals gathered off of one base in the end remains the same, so if you keep him contained he'll just run dry before you do in the end. | ||
|
VanGarde
Sweden755 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:03 me_viet wrote: Supply Depots ARE imba =P How is it fair that you can wall-off completely and still have the option of moving out with all possible units? Toss can't wall-off completely. If they wall-off with gate + core or 2gate, it means they can't go immortals and have to research blink for all stalkers in-base to get out, or existing stalkers to get in to defend against drops. Just stfu, ppls like you who just comes in here and is condescending to all other posters in a discussion forum thinking they're top shit gets me on edge. What are your credentials? ARE YOU a blizzard game designer? ARE you even a game designer at all? DO you even play the game? Are you even out of puberty yet? Be constructive in a forum. Provide evidence. "blah blah blah you're all wanna-be game designers and have no clue" is just downright bm. For all we know, 10yrs from now we can look back and say "wow, mules were imba back then, how on earth did any1 beat Terran?" Yeah because that wall of rant you just typed up was not bm at all  I am just calling it as I see it if that pinches a nerve for you then I suggest you grow a thicker skin or stay away from the internets.The fact is the following, there is ONE widely accepted imbalance at the moment that is really agreed upon at the higher levels of play and that is that terran is possibly too strong against zerg in the early game. It is questionable if this is the case in the mid game and it most definately is not the case in the late game. This fact combined with these forums and a lot of people who do not understand rts games has led to a group psychology effect where everyone is looking for imbalances that are not there, and then making simplistic comparisons of single game elements like trying to compare the marauder and the stalker to conclude that the marauders i op. An obvious futile exercise since a game like sc2 is balanced through the greater whole and not unit for unit. If thats what you want then I suggest you play warcraft 2. Furthermore it has led to a lot of mediocre players to suck this imbalance thing up and start to blame it for all their losses. You see it all the time on the ladders, zerg players who actually played horribly or did very basic mistakes but end up blaming the tanks for their loss later on because they read on team liquid that terran is op. It gets even more ridiculous when protoss players who loose in the late game whine over how marauders are too strong when most high level players right now are leaning towards protoss being slightly overpowered in this matchup in the later stages of the game. | ||
|
arsenic
United States163 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:06 VanGarde wrote: That argument is incorrect and based on either faulty logic or understanding of the race. You are just assuming that you always want to call down a mule on 50 energy like a robot. Which is not at all always the case. There are plenty of situations, especially in TvT where you want to save up energy for scans, then if you realize that you do not need the scans you call down two mules. A cooldown just dumbs down the gameplay. On September 17 2010 14:06 VanGarde wrote:There are unfortunately way too many wanna-be game designers on these forums who sadly do not understand how the game works even at the most superficial level. On a more serious note, that's exactly why it needs to have a cooldown. It's pretty silly to be holding on to that energy for scans and then after realizing you don't need to scan, you can dump all that energy into MULEs. Effectively, there is no opportunity cost for that action when there should be an opportunity cost for everything (everything I can think of anyways) economy related in the game. Infrastructure now or SCVs now? Setting yourself up for the mid and late game is very important but that importance for Terran is minimized because of the MULE. It lets them do whatever they want then recover economically. If they play for the mid/late game, then it lets them pull ahead of the other two races even more. Also, what's wrong with being a "robot" and making the Terran player call down a MULE every 50 energy? Try to back up your points with some valid arguments rather than just saying that people shouldn't have their own opinions. | ||
|
me_viet
Australia1350 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:06 VanGarde wrote: That argument is incorrect and based on either faulty logic or understanding of the race. You are just assuming that you always want to call down a mule on 50 energy like a robot. Which is not at all always the case. There are plenty of situations, especially in TvT where you want to save up energy for scans, then if you realize that you do not need the scans you call down two mules. A cooldown just dumbs down the gameplay. Isn't that where the problem is though? If you add-on more CC's these choices are easier to make (imo). You have more scans/Mules available to you. You can purposely save one CC worth of scans. and one for mules as both are castable anywhere on the map. If we look at Zerg, every hatch+queen requires those extra apm to maintain top efficiency. Missing an inject larva means you'll have less larva. Even at the later stages of the game, planting a creep tumour in base has less effect the later the game goes on. | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
1 Mule per CC would never work, since it punishes you way to greatly while the energy of OC has very limited versatility(compared to inject/chrono). Making Mule cost supply *could* work, but there would need to be some tweaking to counter it, such as "You can go over supply cap while using mule", meaning that existant mules limit your army while existant army doesn't limit mules(one idea of tweak). (chrono is usable on tech while at 200/200 aswell as inject on hatch). On September 17 2010 13:14 eth3n wrote: I sincerely doubt you have ever played zerg, because the entire game is knowing when you can drone and when you can't His point is still valid. It's rather hard to compare racial differences(in this case mainly due to overlord/drone dieing when building), but if you always make drones from your hatch larvae production, use your first inject for only drones(per hatch) and the rest of the game you use larvae from inject only for OLs/units, you will have similar econ. For toss you need to CB to provide you with 2.5 extra probes from the nexus(since OC takes 35sec meanwhile toss gets up 2 probes). 2 CBs give you 1 extra probe, so 5 CBs(3.7min time to get that energy) you should be equal in econ to terran and any extra CBs on the nexus will put you ahead on econ(if CB was to be used only for nexus, toss could produce 22.5% faster workers). Note: This is not assuming oversaturation(more than 24 workers on minerals). In which case of course Mule is undeniably strong(but there's not much blizz can do about that i believe). Note#2: The cost of drones/probe is hard to calc, but it somewhat equals out due to 150 mineral cost of OC. At the same time zerg has to get a queen, but then again that is a unit which has uses beyond just macro. Another note for all the toss/zerg out there. There can be tactical decision for having over 100 energy on OC. There are many builds out there that wait with muling especially to be able to scan in case of DTs and therefor stall until detection is out. People in general are acting like mule's don't 'die' in 90 sec. The mechanic of the mule is great for calculations(since 50 energy takes ~90sec to replenish). Up until 200 energy(aka energy cap) your OC provides you with 3 minerals/sec(norm worker provides ~0.66 minerals/sec). That is all. The number does NOT go above that even if you see 200 mules come down. | ||
|
Martinni
Canada169 Posts
On September 17 2010 10:59 Subversion wrote: the issue is that if zerg miss an inject, too bad. need an army? oh sorry u forgot to inject, gg. terran: zomg i haven't used any mules from my 2 bases in like 3 minutes! *drops 8* They should make that you can only have 1 mule per CC... it would be similar to zerg's punishing macro mecanics... Or they should make that you can inject multiple time the same hatchery. Because if you think of it, both Protoss and Terran macro mecanic is pretty forgiving. | ||
|
peawok
United States71 Posts
| ||
|
gm.tOSS
Germany898 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:03 me_viet wrote: Supply Depots ARE imba =P How is it fair that you can wall-off completely and still have the option of moving out with all possible units? Toss can't wall-off completely. If they wall-off with gate + core or 2gate, it means they can't go immortals and have to research blink for all stalkers in-base to get out, or existing stalkers to get in to defend against drops. Just stfu, ppls like you who just comes in here and is condescending to all other posters in a discussion forum thinking they're top shit gets me on edge. What are your credentials? ARE YOU a blizzard game designer? ARE you even a game designer at all? DO you even play the game? Are you even out of puberty yet? Be constructive in a forum. Provide evidence. "blah blah blah you're all wanna-be game designers and have no clue" is just downright bm. For all we know, 10yrs from now we can look back and say "wow, mules were imba back then, how on earth did any1 beat Terran?" You do realize that you can wall off with every Terran building that can fly jsut as easily and just like back in broodwar? | ||
|
ploy
United States416 Posts
| ||
|
me_viet
Australia1350 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:14 Slivered Skin wrote: Woah, calm down there, mate. He's entitled to his own opinions, and your entitled to yours. I'm sure that we don't have to resort to personal attacks against someone's age to get a point across. And you know...I'm pretty sure he has a point about the whole hysteria thing going on. Being a zerg player myself, I'm rather annoyed at the number of people fussing about imbalance when the replay clearly shows that they lost because, well, they weren't as good a player. I'm going to reiterate the point made many times beforehand, and state that a cooldown on MULE would be fantastic. It would allow good players to keep up a steady stream of MULEs while preventing them (or lesser players) from spamming MULEs at a new expansion or one recently shut down by well-managed harass. It just makes it so much less rewarding to kill SCVs with mutas when the terran player doesn't even take an economy hit because of all the MULEs he just whipped up out of nowhere. The number of minerals it gathers, however, can most likely stay the same. The same number of minerals gathered off of one base in the end remains the same, so if you keep him contained he'll just run dry before you do in the end. 'lol i'm usually calm. He actually attacked the majority of posters in this thread by labelling them as "wannabe-game designers who have no clue" or accused them of just jumping on the 'bandwagon' for no reason. He actually posted nothing constructive in his post other than downright degrading other posters. If that's his 'opnion' than my opinion is stated in my post. Your last point (imo) is wrong. I would rather mine out my base first and have those minerals in the bank. An extreme example would be, wouldn't you rather be mined out at the start and have all those minerals in the bank? | ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:21 Martinni wrote: They should make that you can only have 1 mule per CC... it would be similar to zerg's punishing macro mecanics... Or they should make that you can inject multiple time the same hatchery. Because if you think of it, both Protoss and Terran macro mecanic is pretty forgiving. The only reason you can't inject same hatch multiple times is because of the queen. If the ability of inject would be on the hatch itself(such as an upgrade or something like OC) there would be no reason not to have multiple injects at same time... If only... :/ | ||
|
gm.tOSS
Germany898 Posts
On September 17 2010 14:02 AssuredVacancy wrote: One thing I hate about the mule is that it makes terran 200/200 to be more potent, as terran needs less scvs, where as the zerg macro mechanic actually makes the zerg 200/200 less potent as queens take up supply. Everything has its up and downside and is not the same. We have three different races here, if you remember. Mules don't take up supply, larva stacks (not the ability on the hatchery yes, but the larva spawned from it). | ||
| ||
