EPT
http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?ForumName=sc2-general&ThreadID=1393047
[O] WWI Starcraft 2 information - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?ForumName=sc2-general&ThreadID=1393047 | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On June 30 2008 01:57 MrRammstein wrote: link http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?ForumName=sc2-general&ThreadID=1393047 Blarg, just wanted to add that. Here is some new stuff for the lazy: Cavez wrote: Q u o t e: Sounds like an interesting game mechanic, and I welcome anything that offers more decisions in the heat of battle. While we're on the subject matter, can you speak about the rumor that all gas buildings will have an ability that temporary enables two peons in the building to harvest gas at a time, and operates on a cooldown? -------------------------------------------------------------------- We aren't doing that currently though we did discuss it. We certainly wouldn't add it to what we have at WWI. It would be one or the other. Generally the "cooldown" type abilities we tried were a bit dull because you just mashed the button whenever the cooldown came up. Putting a minerals cost to the ability has so far been much more interesting. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Q u o t e: I like this a lot more than some of the rumors going around. Two questions: 1) Will there be any way to regenerate minerals? 2) Can you Restore Gas an unlimited number of times? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) No. At least not right now.=) 2) Yes. I'm a little worried about some weird end-game scenarios where you have way too much gas but so far it hasn't been as much of a problem as I thought it would be. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Q u o t e: Does each mineral field have 1500 minerals still, or has that been lowered as well? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Still 1500. We are only trying to lower the rate of minerals collection. We still want an expansion to have the same minerals value that it did in the original game. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
I'm strictly against it, it's unneccessary, it isn't fun and it makes the game less competitive and more messed up. It shouldn't be so easy to mess things up, that should be up to the players skill and experience. If you want to mess up things you should take the risk of losing the game in an instant. If you can simply exchange mins for gas you can change your strategy in a split second and that's not how this game should be. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On June 30 2008 03:00 ForAdun wrote: If anything slapping a mineral cost on it makes more sense than a flat cooldown for two reasons:Oh my, they don't really want to make this exchange minerals for gas thing in SC2, please not come on. That doesn't add depth to the game, it also doesn't make it more interesting, it only helps sloppy players who don't plan out their builds and strategies well. Why would you want that feature if not because you run out of ideas once again? I'm strictly against it, it's unneccessary, it isn't fun and it makes the game less competitive and more messed up. It shouldn't be so easy to mess things up, that should be up to the players skill and experience. If you want to mess up things you should take the risk of losing the game in an instant. If you can simply exchange mins for gas you can change your strategy in a split second and that's not how this game should be. 1) There's already an intrinsic mineral loss built into it by transfering workers from minerals to gas. 2) After you use this ability for 500 minerals worth of uses, you've put yourself behind as you might as well have created a new expansion. I don't at all see how this rewards sloppy play when careful timing of when to and not to use this ability would be integrated into any SC2 build order. Improper use of it would result in lost minerals to play catchup, how is this any different than having a delayed expo or forgetting to queue up a worker? You're not buying gas, you're buying another geyser for 30 seconds. I suppose it could be useful if you're contained, but like I said after a certain number of uses you're still down economy in the long run, not to mention you'll deplete your geyser faster as well. Yet again you prove you're a worthless troll who doesn't support anything in this game, so what else is new. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
Try to be constructove once in a while, your criticism is usually based on "It´s not like in SC". You don´t like it? Fine. But either make a alternative suggestion or at least give a reasonable explanation why something wouldn´t work WITHOUT refering to SC:BW. | ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5472 Posts
| ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
| ||
|
trollbone
France1905 Posts
WWI stracraft 2 matches [url blocked] - by Pellucidity Battle.net WWI new Gas mechanic - by MrRammstein | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
On June 30 2008 03:00 ForAdun wrote: Oh my, they don't really want to make this exchange minerals for gas thing in SC2, please not come on. That doesn't add depth to the game, it also doesn't make it more interesting, it only helps sloppy players who don't plan out their builds and strategies well. Why would you want that feature if not because you run out of ideas once again? I'm strictly against it, it's unneccessary, it isn't fun and it makes the game less competitive and more messed up. It shouldn't be so easy to mess things up, that should be up to the players skill and experience. If you want to mess up things you should take the risk of losing the game in an instant. If you can simply exchange mins for gas you can change your strategy in a split second and that's not how this game should be. As Cavez wrote this will be actually not so easy, how did you consider this easy? 2gases means 6 workers!! but gas income will be bigger only by 50%, please read what he wrote With no need to expo to get 2nd gas scouting will be even more crucial than it is now! This will be something different than simple current Assimilator/etc before or after Gate(s)... | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
Trollbone only link from me, Unentschieden was 1st to post it here  | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
For those people who are strongly against it, you're just blinded by the game that SC1 is, and for some reason view it as an artifical means to 'fix' the macro/micro disturbance caused by MBS. Well, here's the facts: It's not artificial. The things made 'easier' in SC2 compared to SC1 include worker auto-rally. Now, let's go step by step through the though process of making workers and sending them to work. Basically, every 12 seconds (iirc) a worker is built, and you must click to make him gather resources, and you must also click to build a new one. These clicks are absolutely necessary to 'stay in the game' with your opponent. There is no strategical thought process involved here: Good players do it all the time because they have the apm and attention span, bad players do not. How ever, ALL players know they SHOULD do it. There is no strategical value in these kinds of decisions. With this new gas feature, there is a far more strategical element involved in resource balance. In SC1, the main issue with resource balance is when to make your refinery. Once it's made, in 99% of cases you stick 3 workers in and forget about it. With SC2, you will need to more carefully plan when you take your geysers. Each geyser will cost you minerals to make the refinery, and you will have to take away 6 instead of only 3 workers in order to maximize gas income. Not only that, but you will have to decide whether you want to trade off minerals to continue to harvest gas at a fast rate with the 'refill' mechanic. Do you spend the minerals to acquire gas faster? Do you do it at both geysers or only one? Do you do it once to get the gas needed to do a tech rush, but at the cost of less minerals meaning a slower expansion? Do you choose to instead expand and maintain your mineral/gas income ratio, but at the cost of having to defend more territory, build an additional CC and 2 more refineries? I'm sorry but to me it seems 90% of anti MBS players are 'replay' noobs who simply watch the pros play, copy their strats and click really fast in order to beat most other players. There is hardly any thinking going on in their brains, and most of how they learned to play starcraft is merely copied from better players. Now, I'm not arguing for or against MBS, and I believe that having a high APM is a good quality to have in the game. How ever, it shouldn't be the ONLY quality. Being able to thoughtlessly click fast is far less impressive than some one who can click fast AND have a strategical purpose to what they're doing. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On June 30 2008 03:25 ForAdun wrote: I have a good reason to only criticize the game because that way it will be far better than if everyone is like "well this can be good or it can be bad, in my opinion it's blabla, and after all it's up to Blizzard". Instead I smear my opinion right into their faces because I think they'll get sloppy designing SC2 if I - any many more - don't. It happened to D2, it happened to WC3, it happened to WoW. If we don't act now and if we don't keep doing this they'll screw it up just like the other mentioned games and I do not want that, no. After all I want to play SC2 as well if everyone's going to play it, I don't want to stay in an almost dead SC forever just because it's the better game of the two. That would be a nightmare, I'd rather quit playing it and I don't want that either, no. We want you to defend your position not your person. Do you even know the term "constructive critcism?" Trust me, a hatecampaign won´t motivate anyone, do you really expect them to try any harder just because you complain about everything? More then the mechanic you should look at what Blizzard tries to accomlish and either give a criticism on THAT or a alternative implementation. I´m supporting the gasmechanic because it is in line with changes I support, changes that try to increase economical (Macro) depht without cluttering the interface. I dislike to make production desicions not on the gamesituation but my resource reserves. I´d rather get the stuff I want even if I get a net loss. Edit: To elaborate on that, the "trade" is very hard to make beneficial since in the long term it´s a net loss. Minerals are finite, Gas isn´t. The player that always restores gas has to really use that gas fast since his "lazy" enemy would have eventually more resources given everything else equal. I´m curious how Blizzard "ruined" D2,WC3 or WOW in your opinon. | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
On June 30 2008 03:33 Cheerio wrote: I don't actually agree with bliz that the mineral inflow should be the same. Better pathfinding means more minerals from mining but only when there are lot's of peons. More minerals > more production facilities, more units, faster teching> more macro. The game itself gives blizzard the way to make up for MBS in macro yet they throw it away... Yea... are they trying to put stress on micro so much? Guess they don't like attack moving ;P maybe smaller armies will be just easier to control... more Boxer like game, less FMP like xP | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On June 30 2008 03:25 ForAdun wrote: Then don't buy it.I have a good reason to only criticize the game because that way it will be far better than if everyone is like "well this can be good or it can be bad, in my opinion it's blabla, and after all it's up to Blizzard". Instead I smear my opinion right into their faces because I think they'll get sloppy designing SC2 if I - any many more - don't. It happened to D2, it happened to WC3, it happened to WoW. If we don't act now and if we don't keep doing this they'll screw it up just like the other mentioned games and I do not want that, no. After all I want to play SC2 as well if everyone's going to play it, I don't want to stay in an almost dead SC forever just because it's the better game of the two. That would be a nightmare, I'd rather quit playing it and I don't want that either, no. I love how you try and polarize every single thing in this forum into the SBS vs MBS crowd when really it's more of a "people who want SC2 to be BW with a '2' attached to it" vs people who want a new game. I'm completely neutral on the SBS/MBS issue and I still like the idea of being able to pay minerals for increased worker count (but not the alternate "more gas" idea they're tossing around) | ||
|
MrRammstein
Poland339 Posts
On June 30 2008 03:36 LilClinkin wrote: I think the new gas in exchange for minerals is a fantastic idea. For those people who are strongly against it, you're just blinded by the game that SC1 is, and for some reason view it as an artifical means to 'fix' the macro/micro disturbance caused by MBS. Well, here's the facts: It's not artificial. The things made 'easier' in SC2 compared to SC1 include worker auto-rally. Now, let's go step by step through the though process of making workers and sending them to work. Basically, every 12 seconds (iirc) a worker is built, and you must click to make him gather resources, and you must also click to build a new one. These clicks are absolutely necessary to 'stay in the game' with your opponent. There is no strategical thought process involved here: Good players do it all the time because they have the apm and attention span, bad players do not. How ever, ALL players know they SHOULD do it. There is no strategical value in these kinds of decisions. With this new gas feature, there is a far more strategical element involved in resource balance. In SC1, the main issue with resource balance is when to make your refinery. Once it's made, in 99% of cases you stick 3 workers in and forget about it. With SC2, you will need to more carefully plan when you take your geysers. Each geyser will cost you minerals to make the refinery, and you will have to take away 6 instead of only 3 workers in order to maximize gas income. Not only that, but you will have to decide whether you want to trade off minerals to continue to harvest gas at a fast rate with the 'refill' mechanic. Do you spend the minerals to acquire gas faster? Do you do it at both geysers or only one? Do you do it once to get the gas needed to do a tech rush, but at the cost of less minerals meaning a slower expansion? Do you choose to instead expand and maintain your mineral/gas income ratio, but at the cost of having to defend more territory, build an additional CC and 2 more refineries? I'm sorry but to me it seems 90% of anti MBS players are 'replay' noobs who simply watch the pros play, copy their strats and click really fast in order to beat most other players. There is hardly any thinking going on in their brains, and most of how they learned to play starcraft is merely copied from better players. Now, I'm not arguing for or against MBS, and I believe that having a high APM is a good quality to have in the game. How ever, it shouldn't be the ONLY quality. Being able to thoughtlessly click fast is far less impressive than some one who can click fast AND have a strategical purpose to what they're doing. I agree with that, just want to put stress on something This is not matter of so called 'click-fest' because actually it makes game good by constantly being force to pay utmost attention to it; this is main argument against MBS - it makes game more fun This is personal choice - some players prefer macro more, some micro but nonetheless making units steals time to command them just as we want to. With so many changes to the gameplay like presented Nullifier's Force Field, Immortals, Roaches, Banelings, Jackals in place of Vultures and their Mines Blizzard is trying to make game that will keep attention as good as SC1 but transfer it more from macro to micro. How can this be wrong on the long run? This isn't Supreme Commander this is StraCraft right? | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On June 30 2008 03:37 Unentschieden wrote: We want you to defend your position not your person. Do you even know the term "constructive critcism?" Trust me, a hatecampaign won´t motivate anyone, do you really expect them to try any harder just because you complain about everything? More then the mechanic you should look at what Blizzard tries to accomlish and either give a criticism on THAT or a alternative implementation. I´m supporting the gasmechanic because it is in line with changes I support, changes that try to increase economical (Macro) depht without cluttering the interface. I dislike to make production desicions not on the gamesituation but my resource reserves. I´d rather get the stuff I want even if I get a net loss. Edit: To elaborate on that, the "trade" is very hard to make beneficial since in the long term it´s a net loss. Minerals are finite, Gas isn´t. The player that always restores gas has to really use that gas fast since his "lazy" enemy would have eventually more resources given everything else equal. I´m curious how Blizzard "ruined" D2,WC3 or WOW in your opinon. They didn't ruin those games completely but they screwed up a lot. D2 with superstrong and superrare items, endless leveling and endless streams of superweak monsters (too easy/stupid), multiplayer mode is a joke. WC3 with the heroes, creeps and bad resource gathering system. WoW with the everything-in-one attitude and recently gamers are complaining that the game is getting old already. D3 is already on the way to become just like D2, they say they're working on it, well lets see. I'm not too interested in that game anyway but I think they'll find solutions especially if they do a good job with SC2. Back to topic, this thread shows what I mean: http://www.battle.net/forums/thread.aspx?FN=sc2-general&T=1393003&P=1 Imo a heavily overpowered function. I don't see why this should not be a gamebreaking feature. Of course it seems nice if you think about it for a while but with more rational thoughts you might notice some flaws. 100 mineral cost. Ok, that can be changed in a patch but it shows what they believe how much of an impact it will have on competitive games being played. Almost no impact in their eyes. Well, of course it will have a huge impact which is that you can gather 5k overmins, then sac 500 minerals on depleted geysers and then gain loads of extra gas in a short period of time. Who cares about 500 minerals in that situation? Nobody. Who cares about 1k extra gas per minute (guessed)? Well, everyone. In simple words: no harm, much gain. If they patch it to something like 250 mineral cost per geyser though it will be just a useless feature. So what do? | ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On June 30 2008 04:14 ForAdun wrote: Imo a heavily overpowered function. I don't see why this should not be a gamebreaking feature. Of course it seems nice if you think about it for a while but with more rational thoughts you might notice some flaws. 100 mineral cost. Ok, that can be changed in a patch but it shows what they believe how much of an impact it will have on competitive games being played. Almost no impact in their eyes. Well, of course it will have a huge impact which is that you can gather 5k overmins, then sac 500 minerals on depleted geysers and then gain loads of extra gas in a short period of time. Who cares about 500 minerals in that situation? Nobody. Who cares about 1k extra gas per minute (guessed)? Well, everyone. In simple words: no harm, much gain. You wont ever have 5k overmins in this kind of setup, think a bit please. Do you have overmins? Then you will trade for gas earlier... Also the min->gas trade is far from instant, first it takes 45 for the building, then it takes 60 for the harvesting(Rough estimate), and then you need to spend it on something to get the advantage. This means that you have to think at least 2 minutes ahead on when to do this, also since half of the time the extractor is inactive you have to still juggle your workers between minerals and gas as long as you do this. This of course means both a lot of macro choices and a lot of macro clicks in one go. And there is no other way to get gas really since the geysers only starts with 1k which will get depleted very fast, but roughly this will allow you to trade 100 mins to 400 gas every minute per expansion or to just harvest 200 from the depleted geysers instead, basically you trade 100 mins for ~200 gas effectively. This means that its viable to not trade, but in a lot of situations people will want to trade but it also delays the gas income at the same time. This would add a ton of depth at the same time as it costs macro clicks and would be a necessity for every gas heavy strat there is. Edit: If you do the math right you see that if you spend as much minerals as possible on the gas stations you would get roughly the same gas income as you get from a nondepleted source in sc1, which is fair since you will deplete them fast in this game. And expansions are still important since they give you 2k free fast gas. | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
| ||
|
Klockan3
Sweden2866 Posts
On June 30 2008 05:16 ForAdun wrote: See, I said it's either useless/annoying or overpowered and you just proved my point that it's more annoying than useful. Hard to get around all the arguments at the same time, eh? But you double your gas income with it, how can that not be useful? And how could this mechanic ever get overpowered? As long as the exchange is limited so that minerals and gas do not becomes the same resource this mechanic can't be imbalanced, and since currently at max abuse of it you get as much gas as you do in starcraft its not that bad, just that they do not technically run out before your minerals do... | ||
| ||
