|
I was wondering what TL thinks about Carriers gaining the Tempests' anti-ground shield. This has been "discussed" vigorously on the Bnet forums for some time. Personally, I like the idea because it defines the Carrier with greater clarity and allows for more focused balancing of counters. Anyone willing to offer insight?
On November 21 2007 08:19 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2007 22:13 Chodorkovskiy wrote:On November 19 2007 14:12 Aphelion wrote: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. 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.
On one hand, your point is very much valid. Indeed, introducing major changes into the current build without regard for game flow will disbalance it. On the other hand, if you never introduce major changes, you'll be stuck with the current build for all eternity...
What I am hoping to achieve with my suggestions is not to have a "Designed by Chodorkovskiy" unit in SCII. It's to give the developers an idea, something they can be inspired by, work with and put into the next build.
There's no such thing as a "bad" idea. Yes, Bnet forums are full of trolls, teenagers and n00bs. But if you compare the amount of concepts generated by that rotting corner of the Internet with that coming from the clean and shiny TL, you will not come out ahead.
Please don't take this as another one of my "hostile" posts (rawr!). I think people here have a great deal of creative potential, but are holding themselves back because they're scared of "ruining" SCII and getting negative feedback from the comunity.
|
On November 25 2007 01:55 Chodorkovskiy wrote:
I was wondering what TL thinks about Carriers gaining the Tempests' anti-ground shield. This has been "discussed" vigorously on the Bnet forums for some time. Personally, I like the idea because it defines the Carrier with greater clarity and allows for more focused balancing of counters. Anyone willing to offer insight?
I really dont like the anti-ground shield. It just doesnt seem logical for the protoss to build a shield which only protects from attacks from the ground. As for the gameplay changes, its not a bad idea. In the end I dont think its required though, carriers will be taken down by fighters due to the high dmg to cost ratio that airborne AA has, and their ability to transverse any terran will give them that advantage which made then strong against ground in starcraft 1. It seems like its a feature for the sake of adding a feature.
|
Each force co-controlled by multiple players?
I am expecting to see this new type of match in SC2 in which macro monsters and micro monsters can put their strengths together. It will also be a great fun for non-pro players, for example I can control some marines and my girlfriend can control some medics ...rushing into tons of lurkers.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
You mean team melee, a game mode that already exists in StarCraft?
|
On November 25 2007 09:28 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
You mean team melee, a game mode that already exists in StarCraft?
I mean 2+ players share a start and units. In team melee each player still has his own start. (sorry if I am wrong about team melee. I have never played in such mode. Maybe it is not too late to try it now). All I wish is to have the same 1v1 game played by 2+ ppl on each side.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
You're wrong, team melee works exactly how you described the feature you want.
team melee is a completely seperate game mode, its not just a melee where people decide to ally each other. how do you not know that?
|
On November 25 2007 11:28 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
You're wrong, team melee works exactly how you described the feature you want.
team melee is a completely seperate game mode, its not just a melee where people decide to ally each other. how do you not know that?
My apologies. I have never played that option. All my knowledge about team melee is from Blizzard's page (Melee - Standard starting forces and resources, alliances allowed; Team Melee - Same as Melee, but with Team play (shared units) enabled). I thought team melee = melee + shared units, each ppl has his own starting base.
|
Team melee still gives you 200 more supply for every player you have though, and more races, so it is kind of different from 2 people playing as one.
|
On November 25 2007 12:04 Antifate wrote:
Team melee still gives you 200 more supply for every player you have though, and more races, so it is kind of different from 2 people playing as one.
Well I guess '2 people playing as 1' may be good in proleague but there must be a reason it never appeared. 1v1 is much more popular than 2v2. Just imagine a standard 1v1 game with savior and july on the same side.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
There's no point to it. You can't see what's going on as an observer and the games would be of lower quality. It wouldn't be a magical combination of strong macro and micro like you think it would, players use their units for specific purposes and the amount of times those purposes don't sync in team melee is immense.
|
On November 25 2007 20:42 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
There's no point to it. You can't see what's going on as an observer and the games would be of lower quality. It wouldn't be a magical combination of strong macro and micro like you think it would, players use their units for specific purposes and the amount of times those purposes don't sync in team melee is immense.
That's why it called team-play?  In this mode players have to adapt to each other deciding who, where, when and what control and in the end team with bigger experience, better cooperation and organization gets more chances to win - exactly like regular 2v2, but more sophisticated and higher demands from team. This mode has very good potential.
|
On November 25 2007 21:34 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2007 20:42 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
There's no point to it. You can't see what's going on as an observer and the games would be of lower quality. It wouldn't be a magical combination of strong macro and micro like you think it would, players use their units for specific purposes and the amount of times those purposes don't sync in team melee is immense. That's why it called team-play? In this mode players have to adapt to each other deciding who, where, when and what control and in the end team with bigger experience, better cooperation and organization gets more chances to win - exactly like regular 2v2, but more sophisticated and higher demands from team. This mode has very good potential.
i agree, but team melee is so underrated and underplayed it doesn't even matter.
maybe it will become popular in starcraft 2, but i don't see how it can be popular in starcraft when 95 percent of the bnet population doesn't even know the game mode exists.
|
There might not even be a team melee mode in SC2 since in WC3 you can already allow team members to control each others units and buildings. Practically the same thing (there still some differences).
|
i'm just hoping they do find a way to implement it PROPERLY unlike what happened in wc3 or sc. starcraft's was fine except for the fact that no one ever played the mode. maybe having team melee tournaments would solve the problem.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On November 25 2007 21:34 InRaged wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2007 20:42 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
There's no point to it. You can't see what's going on as an observer and the games would be of lower quality. It wouldn't be a magical combination of strong macro and micro like you think it would, players use their units for specific purposes and the amount of times those purposes don't sync in team melee is immense. That's why it called team-play? In this mode players have to adapt to each other deciding who, where, when and what control and in the end team with bigger experience, better cooperation and organization gets more chances to win - exactly like regular 2v2, but more sophisticated and higher demands from team. This mode has very good potential.
It doesn't as a spectator sport. It looks exactly like a 1v1 with more mistakes.
|
I haven\'t been posting but here\'s my ideas for a bit.
First and foremost I would like to emphasize the importance of OPTIONS
A lot of you makes it sounds like if a feature is implemented it has to be mandatory. It is simply not the case. Features are optional, newbs pick some of the less powerful, but easier to manage options, while pros pick more powerful, but harder to master options. (Newbs attack move, Pros use dragoons to snipe spidermines, Boxer uses arrow keys)
That\'s how life works, remember the training wheels? Remember Diapers? There we go.
Now I will address some of the more specific topics that came up in this thread:
Allow teamates to controll your units
-Should it be there?
Definitely, give an option for it. If you agree to let someone controll your unit, select that option (if you play dota you\'ll know what I\'m talking about). But he has to persuade you to give him the controlls. It can be great in team games when one person is left in the game with a pylon he can still grab a group of mutalisks and harass with them while his teamate focuses more on macro.
-How should it be implemented?
I don\'t think it should be allowed if one player is ELIMINATED. He should only be able to observe his teamate if he is eliminated. So a player has to somehow perserve his existence in the game in order to control allied units.
-What are some of the possibilities?
Well I think it is great if some player prefers an early aggressive style such as 9 pool speed which leaves him hopelessly overrun late game but he can then controls his allies\' units to continue the battle.
It is also gives a new definition of eliminating a player because severely crippling one player won\'t be as damaging because suddenly the other teamates have boxer micro.
Sharing Resources
-Should it be there?
Yes. This goes hand in hand with sharing units. In team play it greately enchance some of the decision makings. \"Should I expand myself and let him control my excess tank? Or should I fund him a badly needed nexus so he can care for himself?\"
-How should it be implemented?
I think it can be done by giving a trade option at your CC/Nexus. Click trade icon, then 2 colums. First colum says \"Give X minerals\" Second colum says \"Give Y gas\"
Rows will be the player names which the resources are given. You can adjust the quantify of X and Y anytime you please.
-What are some of the restrictions?
There should NEVER be a fixed variable restriction such as \"No fund transfer for first 10 minutes\". Because starcraft is a game of great variety and by imposing a fixed variable on a game with a multitute of different situations is not desireable.
The restriction should be by percentage, X% transfer cost(penalty) sounds good to me.
-What are some of the implications?
Well it can be greate fun because you can fund your ally with excessive gas to rush mutalisks while you mass zealot for awesome zlot/muta combo or something goofy.
It also enchances the decision makings of the game. For instance: You can choose to let your zerg ally expand and not building any army while you get the money he makes and use your army to protect his expansions.
-Other stuffs:
1. Infested building that does not produce fancy infested units but just spawn larvaes and creeps
I would love the infest building idea that you get extra larvae spawns from it. It goes very well with Bluzman\'s territorial control idea because once you infest a building you gain a production facility which you can use to gain momentum from elimination of one of his expansion, for instance.
My elaboration on it (How to implement):
The infested building should have hitpoints that come in 2 parts. Kind of like protoss shield and armour.
The first part is the infestation hitpoint. When a building is being infested, it start out with a low infestation HP. As time goes on, the infestation continues to deepen, causing the infestation hitpoint to increase.
The second part is the building's original hitpoint. When the building is infested, it will be damaged and say have about 80% HP remaining. As the infestation goes on, the building's original HP will be consumed slowly, as it decreases to 0 (Fully infested).
When a building is fully infested, the queen may leave.
When a building is partially infested, the player can kill the infested HP(queen will die) and get the building back under control.
A building with 100% hp cannot be infested. However, we can set a X% which the building CAN be infested.
The building's original HP will thus be X%
And the starting infestation HP will thus be (100-X)% so once the infestation starts the total HP of the building remains same.
2. Tabs for more hotkeys (I want to elaborate because he kept it kinda brief)
What a fantastic idea! An exellent OPTION. By using the tab key you gain access to different types of hotkeys. Icon somewhere will indicate which set of hotkeys are you on.
You can be on the building keys, where 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 will be gateways.
You hit tab to change into the unit hotkeys, where 1 2 3 4 can be goons, 4 5 can be sairs, ect
Then you can micro/macro like a champ.
|
On November 27 2007 05:51 evanthebouncy! wrote:
2. Tabs for more hotkeys (I want to elaborate because he kept it kinda brief)
What a fantastic idea! An exellent OPTION. By using the tab key you gain access to different types of hotkeys. Icon somewhere will indicate which set of hotkeys are you on.
You can be on the building keys, where 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 will be gateways.
You hit tab to change into the unit hotkeys, where 1 2 3 4 can be goons, 4 5 can be sairs, ect
Then you can micro/macro like a champ.
i doubt they would do that, but if they did, then for the love of god i would hope that they would make it absolutely completely customizable. because, frankly, it would screw up hotkeys completely if it wasn't.
err, i'm not sure how they would do that, or whatever, if it even fits into your idea. but here's what i mean.
if you set that up, that means you have to press 3 buttons instead of 2, or 2 instead of 1. because you have to swap over. not everyone would want units and building on a different menu i guess is what i'm trying to say. but if they just made like what? 10 pages of 10 hotkeyed unitgroups/building groups, or whatever, that'd be fine, although way too many probably lol...but to put units on one page and buildings on another is just a really really bad idea, unless that's just customizable to be a result for one person.
|
On November 27 2007 15:28 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2007 05:51 evanthebouncy! wrote:
2. Tabs for more hotkeys (I want to elaborate because he kept it kinda brief)
What a fantastic idea! An exellent OPTION. By using the tab key you gain access to different types of hotkeys. Icon somewhere will indicate which set of hotkeys are you on.
You can be on the building keys, where 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 will be gateways.
You hit tab to change into the unit hotkeys, where 1 2 3 4 can be goons, 4 5 can be sairs, ect
Then you can micro/macro like a champ. i doubt they would do that, but if they did, then for the love of god i would hope that they would make it absolutely completely customizable. because, frankly, it would screw up hotkeys completely if it wasn't. err, i'm not sure how they would do that, or whatever, if it even fits into your idea. but here's what i mean. if you set that up, that means you have to press 3 buttons instead of 2, or 2 instead of 1. because you have to swap over. not everyone would want units and building on a different menu i guess is what i'm trying to say. but if they just made like what? 10 pages of 10 hotkeyed unitgroups/building groups, or whatever, that'd be fine, although way too many probably lol...but to put units on one page and buildings on another is just a really really bad idea, unless that's just customizable to be a result for one person.
OPTIONS
God read my first sentence.
|
Idea for Terran veterancy:
Higher-ranking units do not deal bonus damage or have increased rate of fire. Instead, they get better AI. That is, "green" Marines will do a nice little line-dance if ordered to move out, but a seasoned platoon will group up like in the Thor's bio.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking this feature:
1. reduces micro.
2. is overpowered.
3. becomes unwieldable with multiple units of different "ranks".
4. comes from a n00b.
My response is
1. I have never seen Marines move in BW like they do in some of the SCII videos.
2. Ranking already comes to balance out something the other races have.
3. C&C way of gaining XP is horrible. All units taking part in a battle should gain ranks, but much slower.
4. Like it, hate it - it's an idea.
|
On November 30 2007 17:32 Chodorkovskiy wrote:
Idea for Terran veterancy:
Higher-ranking units do not deal bonus damage or have increased rate of fire. Instead, they get better AI. That is, "green" Marines will do a nice little line-dance if ordered to move out, but a seasoned platoon will group up like in the Thor's bio.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking this feature:
1. reduces micro.
2. is overpowered.
3. becomes unwieldable with multiple units of different "ranks".
4. comes from a n00b.
My response is
1. I have never seen Marines move in BW like they do in some of the SCII videos.
2. Ranking already comes to balance out something the other races have.
3. C&C way of gaining XP is horrible. All units taking part in a battle should gain ranks, but much slower.
4. Like it, hate it - it's an idea.
I must say I hate this idea very much, oh yes I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
