On August 30 2024 20:29 Vision_ wrote: My idea concerning marines change :
damage from 5 to 4 + 1 against armored
Consequences :
1) As hydralisks are replacing as no armor tag with 1 supply cost (like SC:BW with the same minerals cost), then colossus damage can be redefined in consequence (or their supply cost decrease due to their weakness against vikings).
2) Old Hellions (replaced by vulture) damage are redefined in consequence (possible increase)
3) The main units relation between marines and banelings are redefined in any case because of the fact that they are nightmare at casual level (some solution in mind, but a big banelings with 1 supply cost seems already a step foward).
4) Add Firebats to balance Marines / Zerglings-Banelings
So you want to add two more units to the game to rebalance an existing one? Sure, why not.
Idea: Lets just add all units from SC1 to SC2 and then, if something isn't balanced, we also just add all units from WC3 and split them between the three races. I was always of the opinion that the one thing Protoss needs to be balanced is a Frost Wyrm...
Isn’t that just called Stormgate?
I’ve long suspected that one part of it was it being a new game, and wanting to make new units, really mark out the sequel as new. The other part is that some BW units just didn’t work in the new setting with the new engine so got dropped. Or they didn’t really work when they factored in the new units they added.
I mean most of them are there in the campaigns, they did port them over and likely tested their viability for multiplayer
On August 30 2024 20:29 Vision_ wrote: My idea concerning marines change :
damage from 5 to 4 + 1 against armored
Consequences :
1) As hydralisks are replacing as no armor tag with 1 supply cost (like SC:BW with the same minerals cost), then colossus damage can be redefined in consequence (or their supply cost decrease due to their weakness against vikings).
2) Old Hellions (replaced by vulture) damage are redefined in consequence (possible increase)
3) The main units relation between marines and banelings are redefined in any case because of the fact that they are nightmare at casual level (some solution in mind, but a big banelings with 1 supply cost seems already a step foward).
4) Add Firebats to balance Marines / Zerglings-Banelings
So you want to add two more units to the game to rebalance an existing one? Sure, why not.
Idea: Lets just add all units from SC1 to SC2 and then, if something isn't balanced, we also just add all units from WC3 and split them between the three races. I was always of the opinion that the one thing Protoss needs to be balanced is a Frost Wyrm...
I'm just saying, if protoss had destroyers, infested terrans never would've been a problem because of devour magix, killing summons.
On August 30 2024 20:29 Vision_ wrote: My idea concerning marines change :
damage from 5 to 4 + 1 against armored
Consequences :
1) As hydralisks are replacing as no armor tag with 1 supply cost (like SC:BW with the same minerals cost), then colossus damage can be redefined in consequence (or their supply cost decrease due to their weakness against vikings).
2) Old Hellions (replaced by vulture) damage are redefined in consequence (possible increase)
3) The main units relation between marines and banelings are redefined in any case because of the fact that they are nightmare at casual level (some solution in mind, but a big banelings with 1 supply cost seems already a step foward).
4) Add Firebats to balance Marines / Zerglings-Banelings
So you want to add two more units to the game to rebalance an existing one? Sure, why not.
Idea: Lets just add all units from SC1 to SC2 and then, if something isn't balanced, we also just add all units from WC3 and split them between the three races. I was always of the opinion that the one thing Protoss needs to be balanced is a Frost Wyrm...
I'm just saying, if protoss had destroyers, infested terrans never would've been a problem because of devour magix, killing summons.
HTs would also become quite interesting with Obsidian Statues, having a unit to create Energy on the field. Swarm Hosts would be nerfed if you can just detonate your workers into the Locust...my nemesis, the Medievac, could be ensnared by Raiders.
Ofc widow mines are removed btw....So technically no new units are added.
...so basically you want to revert Terran back to SC1? Taking Hellions and Widow Mines out, Vultures and Firebats in? I know you are one of the three people that take SC: Evo serious, but maybe lets just enjoy the fact that SC1 and SC2 are two different games with two different gameplay mechanics?
On August 30 2024 20:29 Vision_ wrote: My idea concerning marines change :
damage from 5 to 4 + 1 against armored
Consequences :
1) As hydralisks are replacing as no armor tag with 1 supply cost (like SC:BW with the same minerals cost), then colossus damage can be redefined in consequence (or their supply cost decrease due to their weakness against vikings).
2) Old Hellions (replaced by vulture) damage are redefined in consequence (possible increase)
3) The main units relation between marines and banelings are redefined in any case because of the fact that they are nightmare at casual level (some solution in mind, but a big banelings with 1 supply cost seems already a step foward).
4) Add Firebats to balance Marines / Zerglings-Banelings
So you want to add two more units to the game to rebalance an existing one? Sure, why not.
Idea: Lets just add all units from SC1 to SC2 and then, if something isn't balanced, we also just add all units from WC3 and split them between the three races. I was always of the opinion that the one thing Protoss needs to be balanced is a Frost Wyrm...
I'm just saying, if protoss had destroyers, infested terrans never would've been a problem because of devour magix, killing summons.
HTs would also become quite interesting with Obsidian Statues, having a unit to create Energy on the field. Swarm Hosts would be nerfed if you can just detonate your workers into the Locust...my nemesis, the Medievac, could be ensnared by Raiders.
Ofc widow mines are removed btw....So technically no new units are added.
...so basically you want to revert Terran back to SC1? Taking Hellions and Widow Mines out, Vultures and Firebats in? I know you are one of the three people that take SC: Evo serious, but maybe lets just enjoy the fact that SC1 and SC2 are two different games with two different gameplay mechanics?
Not really, it s only a third percent of changes (gameplay mecanics - PART 3)
plus one third because of bases pattern (i.e minerals fields), they are always drawing the same shape on the map, so strategy is redundant even if we saw some fresh map with innovation recently. Here the idea is inspired by harvesting spices like Dune RTS (i.e harvest minerals far from base, workers can cross cliffs to harvest violet mineral inside a neutral building in order to be protected of harrassement when harvesting PART-2). Three units with a rock paper scissor model : zerglings, vultures and stalkers are used as harassement units against workers harvesting violet minerals in the start of the game.
plus one last third for slowing firerate units (PART-1)
8 range stalker would be broken as all hell, even if was a late game upg that got disabled upon blinking. 8 range is neural, lurker un-upgraded range, so we're outranging cannons, spines and planetaries. Pvp would become even more stalker obsessed, and in the other matchups stalkers would become late game units as well. Ff is extremely powerful with long range units, storm becomes better at zoning, because there's now a smaller range of optimal position for the other player to position his units. Vinkings and corruptors would be less likely to get shots off on carriers. Liberator vs. stalker would be a fair fight. Medivacs, and any unit would be easier to snipe off.
The idea is to reduce the number of bases per players and avoid redundant game because of the relative similarity between maps and their expand. With this kind of modification (and with a structure on the mineral field to protect the harvester), it will be interesting to look how player will adapt their strategy depending of risk/reward (less "big workers" than usual workers, plus high income per travel), i m thinking map will host 3 or 4 old minerals fields plus maybe about ten new violet mineral field.
Note : only light structures can be built on the ground with violet minerals. (defensive structures, tumors, etc...)
The idea is to reduce the number of bases per players and avoid redundant game because of the relative similarity between maps and their expand. With this kind of modification (and with a structure on the mineral field to protect the harvester), it will be interesting to look how player will adapt their strategy depending of risk/reward (less "big workers" than usual workers, plus high income per travel), i m thinking map will host 3 or 4 old minerals fields plus maybe about ten new violet mineral field.
Note : only light structures can be built on the ground with violet minerals. (defensive structures, tumors, etc...)
Haha, that was hilarious!
The SCVs would need to bring in a few 100 minerals per trip for that to be worth it. Babysitting workers while they harvest resources is NOT my idea of fun for RTS games. Look at how Battle Aces took it in the complete opposite direction: expansions are built by a single click, and the static "workers" are built automatically. This frees up time to think about micro, attack angles and unit compositions.
Expanding/not expanding is already a risk/reward consideration in any RTS game.
The idea is to reduce the number of bases per players and avoid redundant game because of the relative similarity between maps and their expand. With this kind of modification (and with a structure on the mineral field to protect the harvester), it will be interesting to look how player will adapt their strategy depending of risk/reward (less "big workers" than usual workers, plus high income per travel), i m thinking map will host 3 or 4 old minerals fields plus maybe about ten new violet mineral field.
Note : only light structures can be built on the ground with violet minerals. (defensive structures, tumors, etc...)
Haha, that was hilarious!
The SCVs would need to bring in a few 100 minerals per trip for that to be worth it. Babysitting workers while they harvest resources is NOT my idea of fun for RTS games. Look at how Battle Aces took it in the complete opposite direction: expansions are built by a single click, and the static "workers" are built automatically. This frees up time to think about micro, attack angles and unit compositions.
Expanding/not expanding is already a risk/reward consideration in any RTS game.
I don’t think it’s many people’s idea of fun.
I can totally get the appeal in a city builder/4X kinda game where you’re securing your supply lines and whatnot for sure
In a more classic style RTS I can’t see it being anything other than incredibly frustrating.
SC2 IMO is already a bit too heavy on the harass workers side of the ledger, this would be like that but on crack.
How do these threads always start with "can we add this unit and/or 'fix' this one" and end with "I want to do 50 'small changes' that basically remodel the entire game"?
On September 02 2024 20:44 Balnazza wrote: How do these threads always start with "can we add this unit and/or 'fix' this one" and end with "I want to do 50 'small changes' that basically remodel the entire game"?
Well we pretty much agreed within the first few posts that adding the Dragoon would do nothing to solve Protoss' problems.
So then the rest of it just becomes a brainstorming session for other ideas.
On September 02 2024 20:44 Balnazza wrote: How do these threads always start with "can we add this unit and/or 'fix' this one" and end with "I want to do 50 'small changes' that basically remodel the entire game"?
Well we pretty much agreed within the first few posts that adding the Dragoon would do nothing to solve Protoss' problems.
So then the rest of it just becomes a brainstorming session for other ideas.
You are correct and if that is what is happening, I'm not minding it. But the jumps are so crazy to me.
It starts with "Should we enter Dragoons?" to which the answer is a clear "no", then suddenly there is the input of Ultralisks needing changes, before we kind of return to Dragoons and start talking about Stalker-Changes. in between there was also a bit of time for some good ol' "lets reverse Terran back to SC1 and kick out most of the SC2 units". And now we have come to mapchanges and fundamental dynamic changes of how the economy works, together with the idea of "more units should walk over cliffs".
And all of that would be fine if it was a natural discussion, if one thing would lead to another. But all of the ideas I mentioned above are introduced by the OP himself. They are not connected in any way. Workers being able to walk over cliffs has nothing to do with "Does Protoss need Dragoons?". The only connection is 'It would be cool, if...".
I know I'm probably overpedantic here, I really get that. But at this point, maybe these and other threads should just firm under the name "Visioncraft" because he clearly does not want to talk about SC2. Or, y'know, he should get a Twitter or something...
The idea is to reduce the number of bases per players and avoid redundant game because of the relative similarity between maps and their expand. With this kind of modification (and with a structure on the mineral field to protect the harvester), it will be interesting to look how player will adapt their strategy depending of risk/reward (less "big workers" than usual workers, plus high income per travel), i m thinking map will host 3 or 4 old minerals fields plus maybe about ten new violet mineral field.
Note : only light structures can be built on the ground with violet minerals. (defensive structures, tumors, etc...)
Haha, that was hilarious!
The SCVs would need to bring in a few 100 minerals per trip for that to be worth it. Babysitting workers while they harvest resources is NOT my idea of fun for RTS games. Look at how Battle Aces took it in the complete opposite direction: expansions are built by a single click, and the static "workers" are built automatically. This frees up time to think about micro, attack angles and unit compositions.
Expanding/not expanding is already a risk/reward consideration in any RTS game.
I don’t think it’s many people’s idea of fun.
I can totally get the appeal in a city builder/4X kinda game where you’re securing your supply lines and whatnot for sure
In a more classic style RTS I can’t see it being anything other than incredibly frustrating.
SC2 IMO is already a bit too heavy on the harass workers side of the ledger, this would be like that but on crack.
Red Alert is one of the best RTS and have been done on this kind of principe
I also miss to say that there will be a neutral structure to protect workers from harassement
On September 03 2024 03:21 Vision_ wrote: meh you seem not tired to see the same build again and again,
so please let people who want, give a try and you are invited to not discourage who are trying
1)Yes, I'd rather see a build in which Zealots allkill everything and the Terran has to do a Fortnite dance with his Marines to raise a shield against that. Wouldn't that be super-awesome cool? 2)You are not changing anything. Most of your ideas are so out of scope that no one would ever implement them into the game. You are not trying to balance anything, you just want something new for the fun of it. And a lot of these ideas aren't even that particularly fun if you think about it from the opponents perspective... 3)I have casted WC3 for five years from 2008 to 2013. At best we had one patch in these five years and that would have been at the start and for QoL features. So please don't tell me how it feels to see the same build over and over again - I lived that life and honestly, still enjoyed it. That's what happens when you love the core game and don't have whacky ideas every two minutes how to flip it 180°
...yes, yes, I know, I'm seriously the bad guy here. But for a reason I can't pinpoint yet, it annoys me to death.
Red Alert is one of the best RTS and have been done on this kind of principe
enjoyed all three parts of Red Alert, ffs I'm old enough that I played the horrible german release version (the censorship and translation was so horrible, they even fucked up the name of the game - no joke!). But RA is in no shape or form "one of the best RTS" when you talk about Esports. Even at its best it was always a niché game. If we talk about RTS who did it right, the only ones to mention next to the Blizzard trio (or quartett if you want to include WC2) are the Age of Empires games. And even AoE 2, by far the most succesful one out of the bunch, worked hard over the years to make the game more accesable and reduce the nitty-gritty, so it becomes more attractive for newcomers.
On September 03 2024 03:21 Vision_ wrote: meh you seem not tired to see the same build again and again,
so please let people who want, give a try and you are invited to not discourage who are trying
1)Yes, I'd rather see a build in which Zealots allkill everything and the Terran has to do a Fortnite dance with his Marines to raise a shield against that. Wouldn't that be super-awesome cool? 2)You are not changing anything. Most of your ideas are so out of scope that no one would ever implement them into the game. You are not trying to balance anything, you just want something new for the fun of it. And a lot of these ideas aren't even that particularly fun if you think about it from the opponents perspective... 3)I have casted WC3 for five years from 2008 to 2013. At best we had one patch in these five years and that would have been at the start and for QoL features. So please don't tell me how it feels to see the same build over and over again - I lived that life and honestly, still enjoyed it. That's what happens when you love the core game and don't have whacky ideas every two minutes how to flip it 180°
...yes, yes, I know, I'm seriously the bad guy here. But for a reason I can't pinpoint yet, it annoys me to death.
Red Alert is one of the best RTS and have been done on this kind of principe
enjoyed all three parts of Red Alert, ffs I'm old enough that I played the horrible german release version (the censorship and translation was so horrible, they even fucked up the name of the game - no joke!). But RA is in no shape or form "one of the best RTS" when you talk about Esports. Even at its best it was always a niché game. If we talk about RTS who did it right, the only ones to mention next to the Blizzard trio (or quartett if you want to include WC2) are the Age of Empires games. And even AoE 2, by far the most succesful one out of the bunch, worked hard over the years to make the game more accesable and reduce the nitty-gritty, so it becomes more attractive for newcomers.
It s funny how you are ranking games without taking account network capacity and progress over time (without mentionning ESport doesn t exist yet), and cancelling every other games worthy of consideration
On September 03 2024 03:21 Vision_ wrote: meh you seem not tired to see the same build again and again,
so please let people who want, give a try and you are invited to not discourage who are trying
1)Yes, I'd rather see a build in which Zealots allkill everything and the Terran has to do a Fortnite dance with his Marines to raise a shield against that. Wouldn't that be super-awesome cool? 2)You are not changing anything. Most of your ideas are so out of scope that no one would ever implement them into the game. You are not trying to balance anything, you just want something new for the fun of it. And a lot of these ideas aren't even that particularly fun if you think about it from the opponents perspective... 3)I have casted WC3 for five years from 2008 to 2013. At best we had one patch in these five years and that would have been at the start and for QoL features. So please don't tell me how it feels to see the same build over and over again - I lived that life and honestly, still enjoyed it. That's what happens when you love the core game and don't have whacky ideas every two minutes how to flip it 180°
...yes, yes, I know, I'm seriously the bad guy here. But for a reason I can't pinpoint yet, it annoys me to death.
Red Alert is one of the best RTS and have been done on this kind of principe
enjoyed all three parts of Red Alert, ffs I'm old enough that I played the horrible german release version (the censorship and translation was so horrible, they even fucked up the name of the game - no joke!). But RA is in no shape or form "one of the best RTS" when you talk about Esports. Even at its best it was always a niché game. If we talk about RTS who did it right, the only ones to mention next to the Blizzard trio (or quartett if you want to include WC2) are the Age of Empires games. And even AoE 2, by far the most succesful one out of the bunch, worked hard over the years to make the game more accesable and reduce the nitty-gritty, so it becomes more attractive for newcomers.
It s funny how you are ranking games without taking account network capacity and progress over time (without mentionning ESport doesn t exist yet), and cancelling every other games worthy of consideration
Red Alert release : End 1996 Esport : 2000
SK Gaming has been founded in 1997, so Esports was a thing pre-2000. Ever heard of Quake? And it literally has nothing to do with Network Capacity. The RA-Games are fun, they have a diehard community, but there is a reason why "no economy"-basebuild RTS never took off. Never. Not C&C. Not RA. Not Dawn of War in any iteration really. Not Company of Heroes or Iron Harvest. Minimal basebuild and economy is helpful for quick and easy starts, but it removes the depth from the game which is needed to get traction. Not saying SC2, AoE 2 or WC3 do it "perfect", but they certainly do it great and in a unique way to each other. And it is part of the core of the game. If you change the economy, you basically change the entire game. And if your only argument for change is "I want something new" then you would have to change it constantly...so what, every new year we design a new SC2?
On August 31 2024 19:19 ejozl wrote: 8 range stalker would be broken as all hell, even if was a late game upg that got disabled upon blinking. 8 range is neural, lurker un-upgraded range, so we're outranging cannons, spines and planetaries. Pvp would become even more stalker obsessed, and in the other matchups stalkers would become late game units as well. Ff is extremely powerful with long range units, storm becomes better at zoning, because there's now a smaller range of optimal position for the other player to position his units. Vinkings and corruptors would be less likely to get shots off on carriers. Liberator vs. stalker would be a fair fight. Medivacs, and any unit would be easier to snipe off.
Yes range for dragoons or stalkes can t be 8, it s better to consider 5+2 and create an unit which is slightly better than marauders or hydralisks(supply cost=1, no tag armor)
On September 02 2024 20:44 Balnazza wrote: How do these threads always start with "can we add this unit and/or 'fix' this one" and end with "I want to do 50 'small changes' that basically remodel the entire game"?
Well we pretty much agreed within the first few posts that adding the Dragoon would do nothing to solve Protoss' problems.
So then the rest of it just becomes a brainstorming session for other ideas.
You are correct and if that is what is happening, I'm not minding it. But the jumps are so crazy to me.
It starts with "Should we enter Dragoons?" to which the answer is a clear "no", then suddenly there is the input of Ultralisks needing changes, before we kind of return to Dragoons and start talking about Stalker-Changes. in between there was also a bit of time for some good ol' "lets reverse Terran back to SC1 and kick out most of the SC2 units". And now we have come to mapchanges and fundamental dynamic changes of how the economy works, together with the idea of "more units should walk over cliffs".
And all of that would be fine if it was a natural discussion, if one thing would lead to another. But all of the ideas I mentioned above are introduced by the OP himself. They are not connected in any way. Workers being able to walk over cliffs has nothing to do with "Does Protoss need Dragoons?". The only connection is 'It would be cool, if...".
I know I'm probably overpedantic here, I really get that. But at this point, maybe these and other threads should just firm under the name "Visioncraft" because he clearly does not want to talk about SC2. Or, y'know, he should get a Twitter or something...
I’m down with a bit of theory crafting, hell I’m a proud member of the anti-warpgate crowd for over a decade.
But I think Vision has said he doesn’t really watch, or actively play SC2, least the competitive side.
I just don’t see the point when, at present there are multiple threads here for in-development RTS games where a lot of discourse is people discussing what they’d like to see, ideas from the iterative to the radical. It seems a much better outlet for their vision, pun intended
Pick basically any ABBA album and it’s fantastic, hook-laden mainstream pop music. But I also love me some Miles Davis, especially Kind of Blue which is something of a high water mark for that form of jazz.
It would be kinda rightly seen as bizarre if I was on Reddit pages for either artist going why don’t they do more of what the other artist does?
EPT
