|
I can't believe people are still unironically saying ChAnGe ThE dEsIgN 12 years after SC2's release
Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game
Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages.
|
I wouldn't really change the design since that obviously won't happen at this stage and it's therefore pointless to think about.
But if I did, I'd redesign terran. It's absurd that in a strategy game your main composition against 95% of the things that can realistically be thrown at you remains the same, just with slightly different emphasis.
|
On March 26 2022 03:45 honorablemacroterran wrote:
The biggest thing that needs to be nerfed is creep spread at the very high level. It's ridiculous how fast zerg can eat the map and just drown their opponent in cost inefficient shit units even if their opponent is trying to clear creep constantly. Perfect example here: creep spread has received multiple nerfs for precisely this purpose. The ACTUAL "issue" is that top Zergs make a boatload of queens, and have the mechanics to keep the spares continuously spreading and re-spreading creep. Top Terrans manage it pretty fine, while top Protoss struggles more. At the same time, top Protoss players are objectively mechanically weaker than the tip top Zergs whose map expansion they are struggling to contain, so is creep spread actually the issue? And what can be further nerfed without overtuning the early creep spread that Zerg needs to be able to secure early bases?
|
Terran: great as is
Zerg: multiple tumors dont let creep spread faster than 1 tumor + give hydras lategame upgrade "+2 vs air"
Protoss: lategame upgrade for stalkers "+2 vs everything"
|
Northern Ireland26237 Posts
On March 26 2022 04:46 RampancyTW wrote:
I can't believe people are still unironically saying ChAnGe ThE dEsIgN 12 years after SC2's release
Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game
Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages.
Because there have been obvious problems in base design for like, 11 years?
In your other post you’re saying Protoss players are ‘objectively mechanically worse’ than Zerg counterparts, but by what metric?
And ‘top Terrans manage it fine’
Maybe if you’re going to accuse other people of having a metal league understanding of the game, considering Terran and Protoss are entirely different races might be a good start
Guys like Stats to pick one bloke were very accomplished players in a more mechanical game, probably the most mechanically demanding game that’s ever had a pro scene.
Is he lacking in mechanical chops or does it have something to do with how Protoss in SC2 works/worked? Did he suddenly lose all his mechanical skill?
It’s a pure spitballing thread for changes people would like to see changed and why, there’s no particular expectation here whatsoever. I don’t think folks are under any illusions.
|
Northern Ireland26237 Posts
On March 26 2022 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:
I wouldn't really change the design since that obviously won't happen at this stage and it's therefore pointless to think about.
But if I did, I'd redesign terran. It's absurd that in a strategy game your main composition against 95% of the things that can realistically be thrown at you remains the same, just with slightly different emphasis.
Careful, Terrans will be annoyed that you’re taking away the ‘great design’ there.
Protoss having a bunch of AoE is of course, ‘bad design’, I wonder why they have so much of it? Why is it possibly in the game?
Aw golly gee I wonder!
Biggest myth in the wider community is that Terran is the well-designed race.
Aspects of it I love don’t get me wrong, the micro is fun
|
On March 26 2022 05:21 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2022 04:46 RampancyTW wrote:
I can't believe people are still unironically saying ChAnGe ThE dEsIgN 12 years after SC2's release
Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game
Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages. Because there have been obvious problems in base design for like, 11 years? In your other post you’re saying Protoss players are ‘objectively mechanically worse’ than Zerg counterparts, but by what metric? And ‘top Terrans manage it fine’ Maybe if you’re going to accuse other people of having a metal league understanding of the game, considering Terran and Protoss are entirely different races might be a good start Guys like Stats to pick one bloke were very accomplished players in a more mechanical game, probably the most mechanically demanding game that’s ever had a pro scene. Is he lacking in mechanical chops or does it have something to do with how Protoss in SC2 works/worked? Did he suddenly lose all his mechanical skill? It’s a pure spitballing thread for changes people would like to see changed and why, there’s no particular expectation here whatsoever. I don’t think folks are under any illusions. Someday you will learn "not my preferred design" =/= "flawed design"
Or maybe not, because it's been 12 years and you're still beating an utterly dead horse.
Stats was a very excellent and mechanically sound player, and is exactly the kind of player SC2 Protoss is lacking right now. His loss is readily apparent to Protoss representation in the pro scene.
Players like Zest struggle with comparable macro rhythm and unit control relative to his T and Z peers. Players like Maru and Serral in peak form win through excellent fundamentals and army control, and Stats was very, very close to their capabilities. There aren't currently any comparable players repping Protoss at the moment.
|
On March 26 2022 05:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2022 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:
I wouldn't really change the design since that obviously won't happen at this stage and it's therefore pointless to think about.
But if I did, I'd redesign terran. It's absurd that in a strategy game your main composition against 95% of the things that can realistically be thrown at you remains the same, just with slightly different emphasis.
Careful, Terrans will be annoyed that you’re taking away the ‘great design’ there. Protoss having a bunch of AoE is of course, ‘bad design’, I wonder why they have so much of it? Why is it possibly in the game? Aw golly gee I wonder! Biggest myth in the wider community is that Terran is the well-designed race. Aspects of it I love don’t get me wrong, the micro is fun
What is fundamentally wrong with a race leaning on AoE abilities? All three do to an extent. This is the case in BW, also.
|
a major design change that would obviously have to wait until SC3: slightly buff individual units that have achieved a high kill-count
0-4 kills = recruit, disciple, predator
5-9 kills = corporal, mentor, slayer
10-14 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager
15-19 kills = captain, master, assassin
20+ = commander, executor, metamorph
this small detail in the game has always intrigued me. I wonder now, as I did when I first played a Blizzard RTS, why these ranks do not have a meaningful impact on the game. we all know and love the story of the "hero marine" who refuses to die
a very minor health / shield / energy buff to individual units with 5 kills and a substantial buff to those who achieve 20+ kills
an executor stalker might have 120 health and its armor would be decorated with a more imposing design to reflect its prowess
I think it would be very interesting and challenging for a Blizzard-style RTS to balance in part around this mechanic. I imagine all the strategies that might hinge on developing your units to a higher rank
it would introduce another huge skill element to the game: denying your opponent the "experience" from killing your units by killing them yourself when they are close to death and not able to be rescued / healed
the other reason I think it would be a good mechanic is to expand the comeback potential in Starcraft. comebacks are rare in SC2 and too often I feel there is not enough opportunity for players to claw their way back from a disadvantage. for example, I think there should be some punishment against players who are far ahead in economy and simply throwing wave after wave of units at an entrenched position, without microing their armies particularly well, in order to overwhelm to player who is behind. it is sure to create some cool storylines and help distinguish those players who can claw their way back into a game
|
Northern Ireland26237 Posts
On March 26 2022 05:43 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2022 05:29 WombaT wrote:On March 26 2022 04:50 Nebuchad wrote:
I wouldn't really change the design since that obviously won't happen at this stage and it's therefore pointless to think about.
But if I did, I'd redesign terran. It's absurd that in a strategy game your main composition against 95% of the things that can realistically be thrown at you remains the same, just with slightly different emphasis.
Careful, Terrans will be annoyed that you’re taking away the ‘great design’ there. Protoss having a bunch of AoE is of course, ‘bad design’, I wonder why they have so much of it? Why is it possibly in the game? Aw golly gee I wonder! Biggest myth in the wider community is that Terran is the well-designed race. Aspects of it I love don’t get me wrong, the micro is fun What is fundamentally wrong with a race leaning on AoE abilities? All three do to an extent. This is the case in BW, also.
Terrans have complained for the entirety of SC2’s existence about Protoss’ ez A-move AoE
While exaltating Terran as the well-designed race.
I have no particular truck with that rough design call, personally
But outside of mirroring bio, it is the only counter you can throw into the game for a mobile, massive DPS and highly microable comp consisting entirely of ranged units.
Terran players like to wank off over how superior their micro is with em, extremely microable units and complain about AoE that is 100% required to exist to counter bio.
I don’t have a personal massive problem with it, the point was that what’s considered ‘good’ and ‘bad’ design by sections of the community.
They’re symbiotically linked, Blizz made the call to make bio as it is, the other races have to factor that in.
Bio can’t be ‘good design’ while the entirely necessary counters to bio the other races have be ‘bad design’
I don’t mind the idea of a ranged glass cannon/high damage ranged faction in and of itself, it’s basically how Night Elf in WC3 function, albeit there’s differences in the core gameplay and melee micro plays more of a role.
|
Of the choices we had I think some of the explosive aoe like widow mines and banelings could be reduced a bit. I don't even watch or play much, but it's not something I ever liked to see. Just didn't feel fun to watch for me is all. Not saying it's "bad design" or anything. I don't know anything about design.
Rather than nerfing the carrier I would prefer if every race had a powerful unit like the carrier that didn't have much micro potential. There is already way too many things to control in the game, so I like when in the late game you gain access to powerful units that don't need to be babysat as much as the early and mid game units. Just my preference, it's not a problem the way it is now though.
As for things that weren't on the list, this isn't really something that could be done in Starcraft, but I think it would be interesting if units couldn't shoot through other units. So big blobs of units would be ineffective because only the front row would be able to shoot. You would need taller units in the back that could shoot over their heads.
I have other ideas too that wouldn't work in starcraft like units requiring energy to move and shoot, making it harder to maintain supply lines as one makes their way across the map. But it would be a completely different game at that point.
I think it's okay to talk about this stuff because sometimes it's just fun to talk about video games. It's a starcraft forum so I think this is a perfectly good place to talk about the design of the game. I don't think there has to be a chance of the game being changed for it to be an interesting discussion. Probably, idk, 99% of human communication is purely for entertainment, and not because it will accomplish anything. Maybe if we were like androids or something then it would make sense to limit communication to only information that had some kind of benefit. I mean everything that everybody says and does is eventually going to be erased long before the eventual heat death of the universe which will erase everything. So maybe we should limit communication to only plans for how humanity could potentially survive the death of our planet, sun, and eventually universe. Until we come up with a solution, no more talking about video games! Haha, sorry I'm just kidding.
|
Northern Ireland26237 Posts
On March 26 2022 05:40 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2022 05:21 WombaT wrote:On March 26 2022 04:46 RampancyTW wrote:
I can't believe people are still unironically saying ChAnGe ThE dEsIgN 12 years after SC2's release
Honestly I don't even know what the point of these topics are at this point, 90% of the userbase here clearly has not played SC2 in a long time or are in the metal leagues with a metal league understanding of the game
Which is fine, but the fact that somehow these threads have not changed AT ALL in over a decade is kinda mind blowing. The only real difference is that the bulk of the community seems to have been driven away by the broken record of self-important, terrible armchair game designers that end up dominating these conversations, so all the would-be particpants that actually like the game and pay attention to it have gone elsewhere, so 50 pages of whining has turned into 11 pages. Because there have been obvious problems in base design for like, 11 years? In your other post you’re saying Protoss players are ‘objectively mechanically worse’ than Zerg counterparts, but by what metric? And ‘top Terrans manage it fine’ Maybe if you’re going to accuse other people of having a metal league understanding of the game, considering Terran and Protoss are entirely different races might be a good start Guys like Stats to pick one bloke were very accomplished players in a more mechanical game, probably the most mechanically demanding game that’s ever had a pro scene. Is he lacking in mechanical chops or does it have something to do with how Protoss in SC2 works/worked? Did he suddenly lose all his mechanical skill? It’s a pure spitballing thread for changes people would like to see changed and why, there’s no particular expectation here whatsoever. I don’t think folks are under any illusions. Someday you will learn "not my preferred design" =/= "flawed design" Or maybe not, because it's been 12 years and you're still beating an utterly dead horse. Stats was a very excellent and mechanically sound player, and is exactly the kind of player SC2 Protoss is lacking right now. His loss is readily apparent to Protoss representation in the pro scene. Players like Zest struggle with comparable macro rhythm and unit control relative to his T and Z peers. Players like Maru and Serral in peak form win through excellent fundamentals and army control, and Stats was very, very close to their capabilities. There aren't currently any comparable players repping Protoss at the moment.
It’s no more of a dead horse than just arbitrarily nerfing or buffing races until we get parity.
Outside of putting AlphaStar in charge of a Toss player, I don’t think any Protoss can come close to what a Serral can do with Zerg, or Maru can manage with Zerg. Trap at his best is mechanically excellent, maybe not quite as good as Maru or Serral, he just is stuck with his race.
The race doesn’t allow it, it’s not how it’s fundamentally built. And it’s not an issue that can be fixed with unit numbers and build times, it’s a real fundamental design thing.
Look I don’t believe fundamental reworks will happen, albeit I did suggest a ‘doable’ change in this threads.
SC2 is still a fantastic game, and IMO is borderline balanced which is miraculous considering mechanics like warpgate
|
Northern Ireland26237 Posts
On March 26 2022 05:54 SHODAN wrote:
a major design change that would obviously have to wait until SC3: slightly buff individual units that have achieved a high kill-count
0-4 kills = recruit, disciple, predator
5-9 kills = corporal, mentor, slayer
10-14 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager
15-19 kills = captain, master, assassin
20+ = commander, executor, metamorph
this small detail in the game has always intrigued me. I wonder now, as I did when I first played a Blizzard RTS, why these ranks do not have a meaningful impact on the game. we all know and love the story of the "hero marine" who refuses to die
a very minor health / shield / energy buff to individual units with 5 kills and a substantial buff to those who achieve 20+ kills
an executor stalker might have 120 health and its armor would be decorated with a more imposing design to reflect its prowess
I think it would be very interesting and challenging for a Blizzard-style RTS to balance in part around this mechanic. I imagine all the strategies that might hinge on developing your units to a higher rank
it would introduce another huge skill element to the game: denying your opponent the "experience" from killing your units by killing them yourself when they are close to death and not able to be rescued / healed
the other reason I think it would be a good mechanic is to expand the comeback potential in Starcraft. comebacks are rare in SC2 and too often I feel there is not enough opportunity for players to claw their way back from a disadvantage. for example, I think there should be some punishment against players who are far ahead in economy and simply throwing wave after wave of units at an entrenched position, without microing their armies particularly well, in order to overwhelm to player who is behind. it is sure to create some cool storylines and help distinguish those players who can claw their way back into a game
An interesting idea, I think it might get very wonky though.
It’s hard enough to gauge engagements with units with uniform abilities, but if we’re factoring in veterancy that’s trickier again to parse.
Also with a strict 200 cap I think hardcore turtling styles might get a bit too optimal as a way to play the game. Just sit in there and you’ve got a maxed army with bonuses and how do you kill it?
Skytoss versus Zerg being one example. Zerg will throw waves to chip at it and eventually overwhelm, and still frequently fail.
Now if after each wave if the Protoss survivors get stat boosts that’s going to snowball to largely their advantage.
I do like the base concept but I’m not sure between just how much is going on, the importance of consistency in unit interactions to gauge decisions and it potentially augmenting turtling styles if veterancy bonuses would translate well to SC2 specially.
|
On March 26 2022 06:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2022 05:54 SHODAN wrote:
a major design change that would obviously have to wait until SC3: slightly buff individual units that have achieved a high kill-count
0-4 kills = recruit, disciple, predator
5-9 kills = corporal, mentor, slayer
10-14 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager
15-19 kills = captain, master, assassin
20+ = commander, executor, metamorph
this small detail in the game has always intrigued me. I wonder now, as I did when I first played a Blizzard RTS, why these ranks do not have a meaningful impact on the game. we all know and love the story of the "hero marine" who refuses to die
a very minor health / shield / energy buff to individual units with 5 kills and a substantial buff to those who achieve 20+ kills
an executor stalker might have 120 health and its armor would be decorated with a more imposing design to reflect its prowess
I think it would be very interesting and challenging for a Blizzard-style RTS to balance in part around this mechanic. I imagine all the strategies that might hinge on developing your units to a higher rank
it would introduce another huge skill element to the game: denying your opponent the "experience" from killing your units by killing them yourself when they are close to death and not able to be rescued / healed
the other reason I think it would be a good mechanic is to expand the comeback potential in Starcraft. comebacks are rare in SC2 and too often I feel there is not enough opportunity for players to claw their way back from a disadvantage. for example, I think there should be some punishment against players who are far ahead in economy and simply throwing wave after wave of units at an entrenched position, without microing their armies particularly well, in order to overwhelm to player who is behind. it is sure to create some cool storylines and help distinguish those players who can claw their way back into a game An interesting idea, I think it might get very wonky though.
it won't work at all in SC2, but it's fun to imagine the possibilties of a new Starcraft game. SC2 is such a fast and responsive experience already, I don't think you can really push it much further in that direction (and even if you could, would you want to? people complain the game is too fast and cut-throat already, with battles ending in the blink of an eye). SC3 will be such a great challenge to balance because I feel it is almost inevitable that it will see the introduction of new mechanics, such as veterancy and environmental variables.
|
On March 26 2022 05:54 SHODAN wrote:
a major design change that would obviously have to wait until SC3: slightly buff individual units that have achieved a high kill-count
0-4 kills = recruit, disciple, predator
5-9 kills = corporal, mentor, slayer
10-14 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager
15-19 kills = captain, master, assassin
20+ = commander, executor, metamorph
this small detail in the game has always intrigued me. I wonder now, as I did when I first played a Blizzard RTS, why these ranks do not have a meaningful impact on the game. we all know and love the story of the "hero marine" who refuses to die
a very minor health / shield / energy buff to individual units with 5 kills and a substantial buff to those who achieve 20+ kills
an executor stalker might have 120 health and its armor would be decorated with a more imposing design to reflect its prowess
I think it would be very interesting and challenging for a Blizzard-style RTS to balance in part around this mechanic. I imagine all the strategies that might hinge on developing your units to a higher rank
it would introduce another huge skill element to the game: denying your opponent the "experience" from killing your units by killing them yourself when they are close to death and not able to be rescued / healed
the other reason I think it would be a good mechanic is to expand the comeback potential in Starcraft. comebacks are rare in SC2 and too often I feel there is not enough opportunity for players to claw their way back from a disadvantage. for example, I think there should be some punishment against players who are far ahead in economy and simply throwing wave after wave of units at an entrenched position, without microing their armies particularly well, in order to overwhelm to player who is behind. it is sure to create some cool storylines and help distinguish those players who can claw their way back into a game
It's an idea I've considered ever since I saw the ranks on the units. I remember it used to exist in TA:Kingdoms for instance (who remembers that game except me haha). It would be extremely interesting but I don't know how it could work in SC2. For instance Z would never go for ling heavy compositions anymore vs P, who would just mass colossi that would get stronger and stronger by the second ; conversely, it would be hard for someone playing vs P to get the bonus on his units.
|
On March 26 2022 06:55 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2022 05:54 SHODAN wrote:
a major design change that would obviously have to wait until SC3: slightly buff individual units that have achieved a high kill-count
0-4 kills = recruit, disciple, predator
5-9 kills = corporal, mentor, slayer
10-14 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager
15-19 kills = captain, master, assassin
20+ = commander, executor, metamorph
this small detail in the game has always intrigued me. I wonder now, as I did when I first played a Blizzard RTS, why these ranks do not have a meaningful impact on the game. we all know and love the story of the "hero marine" who refuses to die
a very minor health / shield / energy buff to individual units with 5 kills and a substantial buff to those who achieve 20+ kills
an executor stalker might have 120 health and its armor would be decorated with a more imposing design to reflect its prowess
I think it would be very interesting and challenging for a Blizzard-style RTS to balance in part around this mechanic. I imagine all the strategies that might hinge on developing your units to a higher rank
it would introduce another huge skill element to the game: denying your opponent the "experience" from killing your units by killing them yourself when they are close to death and not able to be rescued / healed
the other reason I think it would be a good mechanic is to expand the comeback potential in Starcraft. comebacks are rare in SC2 and too often I feel there is not enough opportunity for players to claw their way back from a disadvantage. for example, I think there should be some punishment against players who are far ahead in economy and simply throwing wave after wave of units at an entrenched position, without microing their armies particularly well, in order to overwhelm to player who is behind. it is sure to create some cool storylines and help distinguish those players who can claw their way back into a game It's an idea I've considered ever since I saw the ranks on the units. I remember it used to exist in TA:Kingdoms for instance (who remembers that game except me haha). It would be extremely interesting but I don't know how it could work in SC2. For instance Z would never go for ling heavy compositions anymore vs P, who would just mass colossi that would get stronger and stronger by the second ; conversely, it would be hard for someone playing vs P to get the bonus on his units.
ah man, you have my sympathies. to remember TA:Kingdoms so vividly surely makes you an old fuck in gamer years  now that I think of it, I don't know anyone personally under the age of 30 who plays SC2. it hit me yesterday seeing how mature Ryung looks. in my mind he is still that fresh-faced Slayers kid in a bomber jacket
chew on this: it doesn't have to be exactly 1 ling = 1 kill. we could imagine a much more fine-tuned veterancy system, one that looks at the mineral / gas value of the unit killed, or perhaps an entirely different set of experience values. kill count would be the basis of the system, but from there you can take it all sorts of places
you could make it so that units do not yield veterancy gains if they die under the effects of certain spells, and obviously not from static defensive or structures. you could also make it that lower-tier units gain bonuses faster than higher-tier units. for example, a ling need only net a handful of kills in order to reach the next rank, while a thor, carrier or battlecruiser might need 20 or more kills just to reach the first tier of bonuses.
Zergling:
0-2 kills = predator
3-5 kills = slayer
6-9 kills = ravager
10-14 kills = assassin
15+ kills = metamorph
Battlecruiser:
0-14 kills = recruit
15-24 kills = corporal
25-49 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager
50-99 kills = captain
100+ kills = commander
|
On March 26 2022 07:23 SHODAN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2022 06:55 [PkF] Wire wrote:On March 26 2022 05:54 SHODAN wrote:
a major design change that would obviously have to wait until SC3: slightly buff individual units that have achieved a high kill-count
0-4 kills = recruit, disciple, predator
5-9 kills = corporal, mentor, slayer
10-14 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager
15-19 kills = captain, master, assassin
20+ = commander, executor, metamorph
this small detail in the game has always intrigued me. I wonder now, as I did when I first played a Blizzard RTS, why these ranks do not have a meaningful impact on the game. we all know and love the story of the "hero marine" who refuses to die
a very minor health / shield / energy buff to individual units with 5 kills and a substantial buff to those who achieve 20+ kills
an executor stalker might have 120 health and its armor would be decorated with a more imposing design to reflect its prowess
I think it would be very interesting and challenging for a Blizzard-style RTS to balance in part around this mechanic. I imagine all the strategies that might hinge on developing your units to a higher rank
it would introduce another huge skill element to the game: denying your opponent the "experience" from killing your units by killing them yourself when they are close to death and not able to be rescued / healed
the other reason I think it would be a good mechanic is to expand the comeback potential in Starcraft. comebacks are rare in SC2 and too often I feel there is not enough opportunity for players to claw their way back from a disadvantage. for example, I think there should be some punishment against players who are far ahead in economy and simply throwing wave after wave of units at an entrenched position, without microing their armies particularly well, in order to overwhelm to player who is behind. it is sure to create some cool storylines and help distinguish those players who can claw their way back into a game It's an idea I've considered ever since I saw the ranks on the units. I remember it used to exist in TA:Kingdoms for instance (who remembers that game except me haha). It would be extremely interesting but I don't know how it could work in SC2. For instance Z would never go for ling heavy compositions anymore vs P, who would just mass colossi that would get stronger and stronger by the second ; conversely, it would be hard for someone playing vs P to get the bonus on his units. ah man, you have my sympathies. to remember TA:Kingdoms so vividly surely makes you an old fuck in gamer years now that I think of it, I don't know anyone personally under the age of 30 who plays SC2. it hit me yesterday seeing how mature Ryung looks. in my mind he is still that fresh-faced Slayers kid in a bomber jacket chew on this: it doesn't have to be exactly 1 ling = 1 kill. we could imagine a much more fine-tuned veterancy system, one that looks at the mineral / gas value of the unit killed, or perhaps an entirely different set of experience values. kill count would be the basis of the system, but from there you can take it all sorts of places you could make it so that units do not yield veterancy gains if they die under the effects of certain spells, and obviously not from static defensive or structures. you could also make it that lower-tier units gain bonuses faster than higher-tier units. for example, a ling need only net a handful of kills in order to reach the next rank, while a thor, carrier or battlecruiser might need 20 or more kills just to reach the first tier of bonuses. Zergling: 1-2 kills = predator 3-5 kills = slayer 6-9 kills = ravager 10-14 kills = assassin 15+ kills = metamorph Battlecruiser: 0-14 kills = recruit 15-24 kills = corporal 25-49 kills = sergeant, instructor, ravager 50-99 kills = captain 100+ kills = commander
 I played so much TA and TA:Kingdoms when I was ~10-12 that I have to remember them vividly (and AOE, and Dark Reign, and Rising Lands... I was such a RTS nerd now I think about it !). Yeah, with some kind of fine tuning it could be very interesting and I personally would absolutely love it, but it's such a huge change it terms of game philosophy that imo it should be implemented in a SC3.
|
On March 26 2022 00:47 WombaT wrote:
Speedy, speedy Manlots versus chargelots
1. Theoretical more micro to do, splitting, flanks, wrapping around positions etc. Doesn’t have to be fancy, lings have a lot of utility purely because they’re very quick.
2. Charge is immensely frustrating at times, don’t think people who don’t play Protoss realise how much of a crapshoot it can be with your zeals, do they charge into where you’re trying to position them or exactly where you don’t want them?
3. Protoss have an actual fast unit. I think their mobility might create some difficulties in PvT perhaps, but could potentially seriously improve the difficulties in non-committal sharking and poking in PvZ.
4. It’s harder to control at the Protoss end. Much of the deathball wanders around at similar speeds. It’s quite easy to A-move for that reason. If you’re A-moving and not repositioning with a big divergence in move speeds you’ll end up with a split army that’s vulnerable to flanking.
I think this is actually doable within what seems to be the parameters of patching that are currently on the table. In general I’d like Protoss to be harder, but scale better with higher skills.
For stuff I don’t think is on the table, but have wanted to see forever it’s a complete retooling of warpgate and gateway tech in general
This definitely +1
For, "on the table" changes
Also I would like a nerf to Corrosive Bile against Force Field, changing it from 1 Bile to 2 Biles to break down a FF.
Would give the Sentry I think a bit more early/mid game power and maybe encourage some more aggression on the Protoss end if FF wasn't gimped.
For off the table changes
Make the Sentry more or a general combat unit since FF is bad now, remove Hallucinate, remove either the Armored or the Light tag and give it one or the other to make it less vulnerable to bonus damage and give it a DPS boost from 8.4 to maybe like 12.4? Change it from a tickle beam to an ouch beam.
|
bring reavers back. that will put those goddamn zergs back
|
Protoss and Terran need a tool to immediately remove the creep(not creep tumor) instead of letting creep dissipate. In the pro-games, when the zerg has extended the creep to the door of other races, auto-loss is confirmed (such as the last game between Serral VS Maru at Katowice). Revising the nuclear strike to make it lethal to creep is one way that I believe can be used, but the production of capacity must be restricted if to do so.
Zerg is not a strong race but is so Overpowered in the hands of a genius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
