|
On December 01 2007 14:26 YinYang69 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Please  for not contributing to the forums in any way
I do not agree with this idea because players should be able to choose whether they want their troops to run in formation or not. The assumption made here is that formations are better than non-formations which wont always hold true. There are always going to be situations where each movement style are desirable. If the game changes pathing for units based on how many kills a unit has, then there is just going to be some mass problems trying to get your troops to do what you want them to do, which will just increase frustration.
A big point that starcraft nailed was that troops do what you tell them to do and are very predictable in their movements. This is necessary in sc2 if the game is going to be good.
|
Please I contribute plenty to the forum. The idea is obviously very ill thought out and there wasn't much needed to be said about it. Starcraft is a game that puts a heavy emphasis on individual unit control. Having higher rank marines do little line dances, or whatever reduces micro and adds in unnecessary balance issues and also can complicate gameplay and control. If you are going to have a ranking system in place for starcraft, just stick to the damn bread and butter, and give that hero marine a +1 attack or armor bonus.
|
On December 01 2007 15:29 YinYang69 wrote:
Please I contribute plenty to the forum. The idea is obviously very ill thought out and there wasn't much needed to be said about it. Starcraft is a game that puts a heavy emphasis on individual unit control. Having higher rank marines do little line dances, or whatever reduces micro and adds in unnecessary balance issues and also can complicate gameplay and control. If you are going to have a ranking system in place for starcraft, just stick to the damn bread and butter, and give that hero marine a +1 attack or armor bonus.
I think the reason this is bad maybe because it takes away the user's control over their units. I want my marines to move straight, just straight, don't do fancy dances please. However if it's implemented it might force the player to lose control of his own units, something many of us wouldn't like to do.
|
I will reitirate: Marines in BW never, ever moved like they do in the Thor bio. They just don't do that, so saying it "takes away micro" is meaningless, because there is no such micro.
The point about total control is legitimate and I agree with it. Additional movement... what's that word other than formations?... ah yes, formations, can be optional. I can imagine plenty of scenarios, where a player may want their Marines all in one ball.
think the reason this is bad maybe because it takes away the user's control over their units. I want my marines to move straight, just straight, don't do fancy dances please.
...
Having higher rank marines do little line dances, or whatever reduces micro and adds in unnecessary balance issues and also can complicate gameplay and control.
+ Show Spoiler [what I mean by a line-dance] +
As you can see, units in BW already do it flawlessly.
|
The line dance that you refer to is the pathing system in starcraft doing what it should be doing. The fastest way from point a to point b is the shortest path. In starcraft, the pathing finds the shortest path and then tells the units to go on that path. If units moved in a group, individual units would actually be moving slower because to stay in formation, some units would have to travel longer distances.
Now in starcraft if you order groups of units that are close to each other to move, they will stay in the same order, which is really cool. Its due to the magic boxes and I hope they return in SC2. However if your moving groups of units that are not close together, they will be governed by individual pathing which will send them the shortest distance possible.
|
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 might play SC2 if it has MBS. But I will NEVER even touch a game with a feature like that.
|
This is something that I have been thinking about since the beginning of SC1. Going along with the theme of bunkers and that horrible unit that replaced the vulture that can shoot while moving, i think it would be badass if there was an upgrade for the dropship that allowed the units inside to shoot from it while moving i.e. a moving bunker... maybe not as strong, but that would be really amusing to have drive by shootings with dropships. I haven't really thought of balance issues, like the range of the shot or whether this could actually be balanced, but I think it would be feasible in for game design and fits into the mode of the terrans.
|
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? Show nested quote +On November 21 2007 08:19 Aphelion wrote: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.
I'm torn. On the one hand, I liked a more anti-tank unit that required a counter bsides goliaths. Since G to A attacks seem weak so far... I'm not sure if having strong shields vs ground would be good. I dont like really strong air units for many reasons.
BUT, making the unit more counterable is a good thing in most cases. Air is always one of those areas that I just think maneuverability should be the biggest bonus... so I dunno. I will say that I was one of the ones who prompted blizzard to make goliaths better b/c carriers just seemed a little too good on certain maps back in the day... which goes along with my air shouldn't equal ultimate unit. But my biggest grief for that scenario is that Protoss don't have a good non-macro counter to Terran ground in most situations... and that bothers me a lot.
In conclusion, if terran ground still beats the hell outta P ground unless P has outmacroed... then the shields (aka carriers not easily countered by ground) would probably be fine... forcing T to tech or outmacro or die. But, I'd much rather see some countering going on in the ground to ground wars first.
|
I hope they give the tempest shield to the Carrier so that the carrier has a more specialized role. This would also require you to produce back up units like the Phoenix to protect the carriers from Vikings.
|
So, Jonanananana Walshaalshalsha.
I don't read this thread -_-;; or Steve, or whoever moderates this hell hole.
I was on B.net today surfing games, when a friend of mine came into channel, spammed my name, then logged off thinking I was afk.
I think another nice Bnet interface would be if you could see the chatroom screen as you were picking games to join etc. Ahh yes. Again, 2 months late or whatever, but always on time!!!
Also, the Retardasaurus critter idea is pretty gosu -_-;; It stands in CC and Chokes to mess you up. It's like the next pokemon evolution for Ragnasaur.
|
On November 25 2007 02:00 Fen wrote:
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.
i know what you mean, but i think you misunderstand the nature of the shield. i don't know that i get it either, but it seems to me it would have to do with range. it seems that carriers are NOT close to the ground, so they should be farther away from ground units that would attack them than the flying units that would attack them. the protoss units all have shields. the anti ground shield for carriers just emphasizes that they are far away from ground units? it is just an idea, i'm not making starcraft 2 so don't expect me to know for sure. anyway maybe ground units will still be able to attack carrier interceptors without the interceptors having anti ground shields. with my theory that would be about right.
On November 28 2007 13:45 evanthebouncy! wrote:
OPTIONS
God read my first sentence.
you should have specified you were referring to a game option rather than a design option.
|
On December 08 2007 04:39 Blacklizard wrote:Show nested quote +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? On November 21 2007 08:19 Aphelion wrote: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. I'm torn. On the one hand, I liked a more anti-tank unit that required a counter bsides goliaths. Since G to A attacks seem weak so far... I'm not sure if having strong shields vs ground would be good. I dont like really strong air units for many reasons. BUT, making the unit more counterable is a good thing in most cases. Air is always one of those areas that I just think maneuverability should be the biggest bonus... so I dunno. I will say that I was one of the ones who prompted blizzard to make goliaths better b/c carriers just seemed a little too good on certain maps back in the day... which goes along with my air shouldn't equal ultimate unit. But my biggest grief for that scenario is that Protoss don't have a good non-macro counter to Terran ground in most situations... and that bothers me a lot. In conclusion, if terran ground still beats the hell outta P ground unless P has outmacroed... then the shields (aka carriers not easily countered by ground) would probably be fine... forcing T to tech or outmacro or die. But, I'd much rather see some countering going on in the ground to ground wars first.
About the Carrier:
1. In some screenshots, Turrets are attacking it and not the Interceptors.
2. In the unit bio, it has a special "deploy Interceptors" animation.
This means Blizzard is taking a more straightforward approach to Carriers and could potentially mean the latter can no longer attack while moving. If this is indeed the case, all the more reason to buff them against ground.
|
Just because the carrier in SCII has a more specialized role against ground unit compared to the original game that doesn't mean it will be stronger against ground. It may just be weaker against air and exactly the same against ground. It may be weaker against air and only a little stronger against ground, etc.
That is a balance issue. Not an issue of carrier role.
If AI auto targets the carrier itself then that is terrible for micro.
|
I've already mentioned this idea somewhere, but im gonna add it to this thread because I think its decent:
A type of mineral patch with vespene traces that gives 8min + 1gas.
There would be a lot of interesting applications for this imo.
|
On December 09 2007 16:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
I've already mentioned this idea somewhere, but im gonna add it to this thread because I think its decent:
A type of mineral patch with vespene traces that gives 8min + 1gas.
There would be a lot of interesting applications for this imo.
Yeah, it would be really interesting having only 1 resource... somebody even had a fitting name for it - vesperium.
|
On December 09 2007 17:42 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2007 16:01 fight_or_flight wrote:
I've already mentioned this idea somewhere, but im gonna add it to this thread because I think its decent:
A type of mineral patch with vespene traces that gives 8min + 1gas.
There would be a lot of interesting applications for this imo. Yeah, it would be really interesting having only 1 resource... somebody even had a fitting name for it - vesperium.
I think he means in addition to the existing min patch/vespene gieser have a min patch with some vespene in it
It doesnt have to be the ONLY resource
|
So far Blizzard has announced a few ground units that can move over terrain previously impassable to ground units. The protoss have the colossus and the stalker, the terrans have the reapers (vikings too to some extent I suppose). What do you guys think the zerg will have?
We've glimpsed the nydus "worm" although there's no telling how that works exactly. And it's clear that Blizzard can't just repeat what they've done with the terrans (aka have a light infantry unit that jumps) or with the protoss (teleportation + a large mech unit that steps over the terrain). What I'm betting on, and what I think would be really cool, is if Blizzard replaced burrow with "tunnel", an ability whereby zerg units could tunnel underground for a certain short distance and use this ability to traverse cliffs. To balance this, I think you'd have to make it really really slow and only work over short distances. So zerg players wouldn't be able to just tunnel their entire army into your base. And of course it would only apply to small infantry-type units like those that could burrow in BW. Alternatively, you could just give the zerg a unit that specializes in tunneling.
|
On December 10 2007 12:50 talismania wrote:what I think would be really cool, is if Blizzard replaced burrow with "tunnel", an ability whereby zerg units could tunnel underground for a certain short distance and use this ability to traverse cliffs. To balance this, I think you'd have to make it really really slow and only work over short distances. So zerg players wouldn't be able to just tunnel their entire army into your base. And of course it would only apply to small infantry-type units like those that could burrow in BW. Alternatively, you could just give the zerg a unit that specializes in tunneling.
yeah if moles can do it, why not the zerg? there should be a mole-like creature for them to assimilate somewhere.
|
On December 10 2007 12:50 talismania wrote:
So far Blizzard has announced a few ground units that can move over terrain previously impassable to ground units. The protoss have the colossus and the stalker, the terrans have the reapers (vikings too to some extent I suppose). What do you guys think the zerg will have?
We've glimpsed the nydus "worm" although there's no telling how that works exactly. And it's clear that Blizzard can't just repeat what they've done with the terrans (aka have a light infantry unit that jumps) or with the protoss (teleportation + a large mech unit that steps over the terrain). What I'm betting on, and what I think would be really cool, is if Blizzard replaced burrow with "tunnel", an ability whereby zerg units could tunnel underground for a certain short distance and use this ability to traverse cliffs. To balance this, I think you'd have to make it really really slow and only work over short distances. So zerg players wouldn't be able to just tunnel their entire army into your base. And of course it would only apply to small infantry-type units like those that could burrow in BW. Alternatively, you could just give the zerg a unit that specializes in tunneling.
I want my damn zerglings with jetpacks!
On a more serious note; I'm presuming that zerg is going to have something like terran, e.g. jumping units. Maybe tunneling units, but only "maybe".
|
I want that jungle tileset doodad of a giant broken down robot to be in SC2, whats the story with that thing anyways
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.battlereports.com/users/Raider/newage09.jpg)
