| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
pooper-scooper
United States3108 Posts
The main reason you want to resource share is to get your ally another nexus/ hatchery. Just limit it to 400 minerals during the first 10 mins of the game. PS: I really don't see a problem with the unlimited selection cap. You still want to flank etc. So I dot mind it, and I thimnk most people here are OK with it now. We are OUTRAGED about MBS. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5461 Posts
| ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
| ||
|
1esu
United States303 Posts
Anyways, if the replay sizes remain ~a couple of MBs, why not have a server segment that automatically stores ladder game replays (or if there are space issues, only the top 10%), which can be downloaded and immediately viewed from within SC2? Also, replay rewinding and rollback (to allow replays from previous versions to be viewed) would be really nice, but probably a total bitch to implement. | ||
|
sgt_cr
Costa Rica95 Posts
ok here it goes. Blizzard is always trying to make games easier for ppl to play, bc they want the game experience to be more richer in other guys instead of just clicking and pressing buttons, so they everytime they create a game with a new GUI, they put new things, like rally points with lines in it, automining, autocasters, tab between buildings, u can add several buildings into one key(1-2-3-4) like in W3, or just use tab, etc... A LOT of SC players(most of them hardcore sc gamers) believe that one of the things that makes SC unique and an excellent game, its bc its hard to master, u need to have a god micro like slayer, or being a macro biatch like nada was one time, or both being like bisu. Anyways we all love SC bc of the gameplay(Fast) and bc its hard to master, u can know when someone is good etc, bc he can do micro battles and also multitasking and building, or making units... And the problem starts there, the game becomes easier, so ppl wont be need to do that much a macro, but micro instead, but i personally believe in that SC right now its almost as perfect. So my idea to resolve this is having 2 ways of playing SC2, it will be like Easy or Professional level, maybe somewhere in the config of SC, settings, bnet, w/e, u can change this, by easy i will mean all the features that blizzard want to add it, and professional to feel what its like to play it like a classic mode(SC right now), or maybe when u create the map u can say just allow ppl that plays Professional here, or mix, or just Easy, something like that, will make ppl play what ever they want, and also can help mantain the status of Pros being REALLY PROS, bc then Big tournaments like Starleague, WCG, ICCup, WGTour, or whatever tournament u want, u can add a rule saying: All players must compete in Professional Mode. So thats basically is my idea, what u guys think? 2 modes of playing, and players can choose, what to play, but the tournament can also adjust so the game is played in anyway they want. my 2 cents | ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On November 16 2007 05:10 sgt_cr wrote: Well i have this idea, i dont know what ppl things about it, but for me it will help a lot the entire community and it will end the mess about the hotkeys and helps that u get from the new shortcuts, etc... ok here it goes. Blizzard is always trying to make games easier for ppl to play, bc they want the game experience to be more richer in other guys instead of just clicking and pressing buttons, so they everytime they create a game with a new GUI, they put new things, like rally points with lines in it, automining, autocasters, tab between buildings, u can add several buildings into one key(1-2-3-4) like in W3, or just use tab, etc... A LOT of SC players(most of them hardcore sc gamers) believe that one of the things that makes SC unique and an excellent game, its bc its hard to master, u need to have a god micro like slayer, or being a macro biatch like nada was one time, or both being like bisu. Anyways we all love SC bc of the gameplay(Fast) and bc its hard to master, u can know when someone is good etc, bc he can do micro battles and also multitasking and building, or making units... And the problem starts there, the game becomes easier, so ppl wont be need to do that much a macro, but micro instead, but i personally believe in that SC right now its almost as perfect. So my idea to resolve this is having 2 ways of playing SC2, it will be like Easy or Professional level, maybe somewhere in the config of SC, settings, bnet, w/e, u can change this, by easy i will mean all the features that blizzard want to add it, and professional to feel what its like to play it like a classic mode(SC right now), or maybe when u create the map u can say just allow ppl that plays Professional here, or mix, or just Easy, something like that, will make ppl play what ever they want, and also can help mantain the status of Pros being REALLY PROS, bc then Big tournaments like Starleague, WCG, ICCup, WGTour, or whatever tournament u want, u can add a rule saying: All players must compete in Professional Mode. So thats basically is my idea, what u guys think? 2 modes of playing, and players can choose, what to play, but the tournament can also adjust so the game is played in anyway they want. my 2 cents This isn't a HORRIBLE idea, but it has already been suggested multiple times, and I think most people agree that something like this would not be good. It would basically split the entire community into two groups, people who play on "old school" settings vs people who play on "new" settings. Plus it wouldn't be really fair if someone who chose to play with MBS could never become a pro or be respected no matter how good he was. We all need to be playing the same game, a big appeal of SC is that we are playing the same exact game as the pros. | ||
|
Fen
Australia1848 Posts
On November 16 2007 08:58 stk01001 wrote: This isn't a HORRIBLE idea, but it has already been suggested multiple times, and I think most people agree that something like this would not be good. It would basically split the entire community into two groups, people who play on "old school" settings vs people who play on "new" settings. Plus it wouldn't be really fair if someone who chose to play with MBS could never become a pro or be respected no matter how good he was. We all need to be playing the same game, a big appeal of SC is that we are playing the same exact game as the pros. Yep that idea hasbeen discussed many times over. I still dont understand why we dont like it though. If SBS is implemented, I can garrentee that ppl will use the editor to allow for MBS. People will do what they want to do. Give them options and allow them to take the game in the path that they want. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5461 Posts
On November 16 2007 02:14 1esu wrote: Man, I can't believe I didn't think about this during the Battle.net discussion last month... Anyways, if the replay sizes remain ~a couple of MBs, why not have a server segment that automatically stores ladder game replays (or if there are space issues, only the top 10%), which can be downloaded and immediately viewed from within SC2? Also, replay rewinding and rollback (to allow replays from previous versions to be viewed) would be really nice, but probably a total bitch to implement. Blizzard actually saves a lot (possibly all, or based on level) of war3 ladder replays... When they changed the AMM system, people complained that they were being matched up with low skill players... Blizzard got like 20 random replays from top players from their server that were ladder matches and showed them that even though they were playing level 10's or whatever, the games were actually close. You can also download some of the automated tournament replays, not all but some.. (not sure why only some) | ||
|
Chodorkovskiy
Israel459 Posts
H.E.A.T. - Hostile Environment Auxilary Tech Purpose: Reduce Terran dependability on psi for base defense (without flooding maps with an equivalent of Sunken Colonies), increase Terran trademark versatility and defensibility. Statistics: Requires Engineering Bay, costs 50/50, has 500 hp. Starts with 50 and can accumulate up to 200 energy. Energy only regenerates when HEAT is controlled by a player. Abilities: Cloak: Hides HEAT and the attached building from enemy sight. Negated by detectors. Requires 25 energy to activate, drains 1 energy per second. [Meant to reduce the vulnerability of hidden tech to enemy scouts, as well as increase building survivability in an attack.] Re-arm: Directly transfers energy from HEAT to target unit in a radius of 3. [Meant to prevent a plethora of energy on the home-front, as well as enhance viability of special abilities.] DefSat: Launches a controllable Defense Satellite, which is a flying, light-armored, mechanical unit with speed similar to lifted-off Barracks, 100 hp, 7 range and an area AG attack similar to that of pre-nerf Banshees. The Satellite can move anywhere within a distance of 5 from HEAT and crashes if the latter becomes neutral or is destroyed. Requires 100 energy to activate. Launching a new DefSat destroys the old one. [Meant as a semi-mobile base defense. In combination with Turrets and Planetary Fortresses, allows the Terran base a greater maximum degree of protection than that of other races, living up to the "defense" theme. Energy cost reduces the potential of offensive use for DefSats, control limit prevents massing DefSats at home for free.] Notes: HEAT may seem overpowered for tier 1.5 tech, but the main price Terran pays for it is not building a Reactor or TechLab: that is, the player sacrifices production for defense. Add-on gun idea was considered, but it would either be an anorexic add-on, or a Bunker on steroids. Also, it's too banal. Gas cost is for DefSats flying. Slow-moving pew-pew satellites are constructed by Professors in some Stone Age RTS I can't remember the name of. Ideas taken from: floating base defense thread by Diablo_M.D. on the Bnet forums, Cloaking Engine add-on idea from someone here, Military Base concept from Haegemonia. | ||
|
SuperJongMan
Jamaica11586 Posts
Also, I think B.net should have a "home channel" Like I never play in BW-USA###. Everyone knows my home channel is Op Tl-West. Others is NL or Marlboro.. ya dig? Too bad I'm retarded and suggested it too late. Retardosaur. | ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 19 2007 03:18 SuperJongMan wrote: Too bad I'm retarded and suggested it too late. Retardosaur. a critter that blocks chokes and stands where your cc should go ON PURPOSE | ||
|
Megrim
Australia60 Posts
On a serious note though, i second the early suggestion for a modifiable/moveable UI. It's a small thing to ask for, and would make such a difference. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On November 19 2007 00:31 Chodorkovskiy wrote: New Terran add-on suggestion: H.E.A.T. - Hostile Environment Auxilary Tech Purpose: Reduce Terran dependability on psi for base defense (without flooding maps with an equivalent of Sunken Colonies), increase Terran trademark versatility and defensibility. Statistics: Requires Engineering Bay, costs 50/50, has 500 hp. Starts with 50 and can accumulate up to 200 energy. Energy only regenerates when HEAT is controlled by a player. Abilities: Cloak: Hides HEAT and the attached building from enemy sight. Negated by detectors. Requires 25 energy to activate, drains 1 energy per second. [Meant to reduce the vulnerability of hidden tech to enemy scouts, as well as increase building survivability in an attack.] Re-arm: Directly transfers energy from HEAT to target unit in a radius of 3. [Meant to prevent a plethora of energy on the home-front, as well as enhance viability of special abilities.] DefSat: Launches a controllable Defense Satellite, which is a flying, light-armored, mechanical unit with speed similar to lifted-off Barracks, 100 hp, 7 range and an area AG attack similar to that of pre-nerf Banshees. The Satellite can move anywhere within a distance of 5 from HEAT and crashes if the latter becomes neutral or is destroyed. Requires 100 energy to activate. Launching a new DefSat destroys the old one. [Meant as a semi-mobile base defense. In combination with Turrets and Planetary Fortresses, allows the Terran base a greater maximum degree of protection than that of other races, living up to the "defense" theme. Energy cost reduces the potential of offensive use for DefSats, control limit prevents massing DefSats at home for free.] Notes: HEAT may seem overpowered for tier 1.5 tech, but the main price Terran pays for it is not building a Reactor or TechLab: that is, the player sacrifices production for defense. Add-on gun idea was considered, but it would either be an anorexic add-on, or a Bunker on steroids. Also, it's too banal. Gas cost is for DefSats flying. Slow-moving pew-pew satellites are constructed by Professors in some Stone Age RTS I can't remember the name of. Ideas taken from: floating base defense thread by Diablo_M.D. on the Bnet forums, Cloaking Engine add-on idea from someone here, Military Base concept from Haegemonia. Haha these ideas clearly have bnet forums written all over it. In general, I believe that complicated ideas designed with clearly specific uses and set combos in mind tend to fail in RTS games. The strength of SC was how different basic things had many versatile uses, many of them completely unforeseen from the developers. This idea is nicely formatted, but I think it is far too bloated and doesn't take into account the its row in game flow. | ||
|
Chodorkovskiy
Israel459 Posts
On November 19 2007 14:12 Aphelion wrote: Haha these ideas clearly have bnet forums written all over it. In general, I believe that complicated ideas designed with clearly specific uses and set combos in mind tend to fail in RTS games. The strength of SC was how different basic things had many versatile uses, many of them completely unforeseen from the developers. This idea is nicely formatted, but I think it is far too bloated and doesn't take into account the its row in game flow. I see. Personally, I agree it's a little convoluted, but the end result sits rather well with me: this way, a successful drop won't send the entire Terran ball scrambling back into the base and a tiny squad of lings that slipped into your main won't force an entire safari on your part. Would you be more enthusiastic about simplifying the thing to just release the same flying turret upon completion and rebuild it upon destruction, or do you find the concept fundamentally flawed? | ||
|
Deleted User 31996
843 Posts
And yeah i agree with the encoding of different hotkeys, like tab+letter or shift + letter means you can bind hotkeys to pretty much anywhere in the keyboard. ability for protoss units to stop shield regen or 'use' their shield regen to get psi 1.5 times as fast or something, (akin to a deflier using consume???) and perhaps likewise for terran having scv's 'insert mana' by having an scv 'repaing' + adding minerals and gas into it to make psi regen faster. | ||
|
dcttr66
United States555 Posts
Since I've just recalled the gameplay in AoX (and I miss it so much that I've ordered myself a brand new copy yesterday because I lost my first) and how the huge army handling was solved there. Basically you had all the standard hotkeys (1-0) and in addition F1-F4 I believe where you could put several already hotkeyed groups together (great thing in all-out assaults but rarely used). It's much better than just UUS imo, standard 12-24 unit hotkey groups provide you with decent control over your army while Fs are there just to ease you the pain of selecting all the groups and some more stuff manually to attack move once or twice during the game or just moving your whole battle group around. Also unlimited building selection would be bullshit (yay for MBS and ResShare - no for UBS and UUS).end quote. this idea is so stupid, all it is is improving on the current selection system, instead of outright changing it, as blizzard plans to do. and now with Q&A number 21, we learn that it's not unlimited anymore, it has a limit, i forget how much but i think they said it's going to be around 100? anyway, the point behind doing this is that hotkeys for units as zerg are totally impractical. if you have only hydralisks you don't want to have 12 and 12 adn 12 and 12...12 hydralisks isn't all that much after you have built like some of these pros do. you're going to want 150 hydralisks to move easily. 3 or 5 groups would use 5 or 3 hotkeys, freeing up all those other hotkeys. alternatively, you could assign all of them to 1 or 2 hotkeys for maximum unit selection and then you would manually reorder units from there. the point is...you should be able to order your entire force in just a moment, and not have it take all game to do it. your idea just puts us back to the beginning, where zerg players like me rarely use hotkeys because they're just not that useful. about the resource trading thing...the only way i can see you could implement a different kind of trading system other than what they have in wc3...is to just do it different altogether. instead of doing it like a sloppy amateur as you guys have been shown, it's wrong to make such a thing an upgrade in a starcraft game... i'm not sure if this idea is even practical for trading resources, but it shouldn't make the game unfair for the people that aren't trading: a way to handle it is to make it so a worker has to pick up resources from a command center or nexus etc and then he can take it to an allied command center or nexus. the total resource count might be different from the norm, then again maybe it would be about the same, or maybe you could choose it. this would be interesting because they could also if they wanted to make the resources salvagable so if the unit dies and if the resources are interceptedby the opponent then you would hurt for not securing the trade route. this would be a gameplay mechanic obviously and not an upgrade, which would be ok, it wouldn't allow instant resource trading so in exhange for taking them to your opponent neither of you have the resources for a time...although for shared bases it would be a much more viable option than having 2 allies on totally different ends of the map. and that would be realistic, and interesting. another option that could be implemented either at the same time or just include it instead is to allow workers to return resources to an allied command center or nexus etc, but those resources would go to that ally instead of yourself. this would help if you have a really newb ally who doesn't know how to build extra workers you could help him get more resources just by maynarding them to his mineral patches and stuff. anyway, returning to the selecting lots of units discussion, overall, i think that such a thing would improve your tactical mobility, being able to send x number of units to where you want to, and then x number over there, and it doesn't matter if you hotkey them or not if you keep track of them. and basically it would allow for even newb players to realize that there isn't a set number of units you need to attack or defend a position. i know some newb players think, ok, i need to get 12 of this unit, and 12 of that unit, then i will have a good attack party. isn't that their reasoning? but good players know that sometimes just whatever units you have lying around can be enough. and a newb player will understand that concept a lot faster with this new selection capability. not only that, but it will allow huge battles to actually be far more realistic, to be able to order a command and have just a bit of latency and every unit you gave the command to follows it. that's how it's supposed to be. when you have a high tech communications system, you want to be able to say, commander to all units, move toward the enemy's position. you don't say, commander to unit group 1, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 2, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 3, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 4, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 5, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 6, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 7, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 8, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 9, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 10, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 11, move toward the enemy's position, commander to unit group 12, move toward the enemy's position. ok, unassigned random group of units that are sitting over here, ditto. second unassigned random group of units that are sitting over here, ditto., third unassigned group? didn't you get the memo? move you sorry bastards!! move!!!! now do you see how incredibly annoying it is? and in starcraft you couldn't even hotkey everything. you couldn't be in control of all, you just couldn't assign enough hotkeys to everything because you could only assign 1 or 12 at a time. all in all, the huge unit selection cap will make the game more fair, and more realistic. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
but then again WC3 is like this, so i'm pretty sure SC will be like this too. On a similar note attack moving into fog when theres a building there, i would rather the units just attack move...instead of attacking the building. | ||
|
Aphelion
United States2720 Posts
On November 19 2007 22:13 Chodorkovskiy wrote: I see. Personally, I agree it's a little convoluted, but the end result sits rather well with me: this way, a successful drop won't send the entire Terran ball scrambling back into the base and a tiny squad of lings that slipped into your main won't force an entire safari on your part. Would you be more enthusiastic about simplifying the thing to just release the same flying turret upon completion and rebuild it upon destruction, or do you find the concept fundamentally flawed? You don't design huge ideas independently of the gameflow of the current build and taking into detailed account current unit / tech build times and interrelationships. So really, the only features we can really say is like depots submerging to ground, minor features which are easy to evaluate independently. This lack of awareness of game context is really what separates bnet from TL. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
There should be a togglable "gg" option when fighting the computer. Basically, when the computer knows its losing it will quit. I hope this is part of a larger improvement in the AI as well. I would like to see them put some real effort into the AI, and make it pretty challenging for most people. I don't think this would be too hard to accomplish. Possibly an open-source AI would be good if they aren't up to the task. | ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
| ||
| ||
BSL22 NKC (BSL vs China)
Group Stage - Day 1
eOnzErG vs Mihu
Messiah vs XuanXuan
Jaystar vs TerrOr
Dewalt vs Bonyth
eOnzErG vs XuanXuan
Mihu vs TerrOr
Messiah vs Bonyth
ZZZero.O264
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL22 NKC (BSL vs China)
Jaystar vs Dewalt
eOnzErG vs TerrOr
XuanXuan vs Bonyth
Mihu vs Dewalt
Messiah vs Jaystar
eOnzErG vs Bonyth
TerrOr vs Dewalt
Wardi Open
OSC
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
