Zerg preview (Dont read,very misleading though, particulary about the Baneling, and the roach.) Terran Preview (nothing new, poor insight) - by trollbone
Vespene Gas Assimilators/Refineries/Extractors now have the ability to double the amount of workers that can enter the building at a time for 30 seconds. This ability has no cost, but a cooldown (~2 min). This is a way to "macro" additional gas creation to boost production.
Fuck yeah, a new way to macro ! It's a good thing and they have to follow this path
On June 29 2008 05:43 trollbone wrote: Vespene Gas Assimilators/Refineries/Extractors now have the ability to double the amount of workers that can enter the building at a time for 30 seconds. This ability has no cost, but a cooldown (~2 min). This is a way to "macro" additional gas creation to boost production.
Fuck yeah, a new way to macro ! It's a good thing and they have to follow this path
ooooooh, interesting... At the very least, this shows they're concerned about the macro issues.
On June 29 2008 05:43 trollbone wrote: Vespene Gas Assimilators/Refineries/Extractors now have the ability to double the amount of workers that can enter the building at a time for 30 seconds. This ability has no cost, but a cooldown (~2 min). This is a way to "macro" additional gas creation to boost production.
Fuck yeah, a new way to macro ! It's a good thing and they have to follow this path
Wow I like that idea, it's strategic and it ads up some to "the lost macro".
Edit: Just looked at the Terran tech tree. Damn, the starport will be needed alot more in sc2.
As much as I want more macro, how will this assimilator thing be anything more than a gimmick?
How might it add more depth? Does it really matter when you do it? There's no real tradeoff- it's just like a good thing - you just want to do it more often...
Now one thing they could do is that you mine at 2x speed, but it reduces the gas by 3x. Shorten the cooldown (2min is like what? 8 times in a game?). So there are times when you want to 2x, but you will need to figure out when.
New ability for the Hive Queen: Mutate Larva - Turns a Larva into a Mutant Larva, has a Mineral and Vespene Gas cost.
New Zerg unit: Mutant Larva Shares all abilities (& limits) and appearance of a Larva, including mutation into other Zerg units. Is bigger than a Larva. Requires 1 unit of control. Can be controlled to move like a normal unit. Can not use any other action than move and mutate. Can sustain life even when not over creep. If all requirements are met, can mutate into another unit almost instantly (~2 sec), anywhere on the map. Cost for mutations still needs to be paid, and additional control requirements are added. Used for creating large Zerg forces at once, but at an increased cost (making the Mutant Larva).
Now zerg has some more stuff to control. Looks like the way they are adding more macro is by making the game more dynamic - the bonus is that your army + offense will be stronger and faster if you use stuff like mutant larvae/warp in. Now if they only brought back drop pods.
Liking the sound of the changes we've heard so far. Drones making defenses now: for every step we take away from SC1 there's another idea that's reverted back to original behaviour, haha. Now we only need to solve the reaper/medivac issue. They're equally far in the tech tree, both can be used for harassing and I think it's fairly clear which one is more flexible.
Oh I see what they are doing now. They are giving P and Z more abilities to produce and position their army somewhere.
For Terran, if you look at their tech tree - there are 5! units in Starport. Terran army is going to be more mobile across terrain. They just have more flying/cliffing units. I think one way this might have to be balanced is by having sufficient terrain for Terran to abuse - because their units are still going to be too slow on the ground.
On June 29 2008 06:11 architecture wrote: Oh I see what they are doing now. They are giving P and Z more abilities to produce and position their army somewhere.
For Terran, if you look at their tech tree - there are 5! units in Starport. Terran army is going to be more mobile across terrain. They just have more flying/cliffing units. I think one way this might have to be balanced is by having sufficient terrain for Terran to abuse - because their units are still going to be too slow on the ground.
I think you might have a point here. The mutant larva thing sound very interesting.
Anyone else notice that under stargate the mothership is mysteriously missing. It says the fleetbeacon unlocks the mothership, but there is no building that lists the mothership as being built from it.
On June 29 2008 07:11 Mastermind wrote: Anyone else notice that under stargate the mothership is mysteriously missing. It says the fleetbeacon unlocks the mothership, but there is no building that lists the mothership as being built from it.
On June 29 2008 07:11 Mastermind wrote: Anyone else notice that under stargate the mothership is mysteriously missing. It says the fleetbeacon unlocks the mothership, but there is no building that lists the mothership as being built from it.
On June 29 2008 07:11 Mastermind wrote: Anyone else notice that under stargate the mothership is mysteriously missing. It says the fleetbeacon unlocks the mothership, but there is no building that lists the mothership as being built from it.
the mutant larva sounds interesting, i like it
Nexus.
oh, wow, didnt even think of looking there.
i didnt notice it at first either. i cant image a big ass ship coming out of a nexus though? o.O
me too but at 1st Demo it was said Mothership is warped in directly onto the battlefield, so it's just changed what building calls it... I wonder if this need Pylon like other Protoss units warped in
On June 29 2008 07:11 Mastermind wrote: Anyone else notice that under stargate the mothership is mysteriously missing. It says the fleetbeacon unlocks the mothership, but there is no building that lists the mothership as being built from it.
the mutant larva sounds interesting, i like it
Nexus.
oh, wow, didnt even think of looking there.
i didnt notice it at first either. i cant image a big ass ship coming out of a nexus though? o.O
The deep warren doesn't say 'requires hive' but the greater spire does, so we can assume lurkers are lairtech again? Or am I missing something? Same goes for the roach den, even though it's next to the lair it doesn't say it requires a lair?
I think reaper is a little bit too far in the tech tree, maybe it should be available at barracks level with an additional building, instead of at factory.
Although now that I look more closely... ghost are available much, much earlier, and are actually useful.
I don't understand the gas boost thing. Is it simply extra gas every 2min if you press a button? Isn't it always more efficient to use it whenever the cooldown is up (unless getting attacked of course)? How does that adds any extra strategy? Just sounds like they just added a new button you have to press every 2min to not fall behind. :S
On June 29 2008 14:32 VIB wrote: I don't understand the gas boost thing. Is it simply extra gas every 2min if you press a button? Isn't it always more efficient to use it whenever the cooldown is up (unless getting attacked of course)? How does that adds any extra strategy? Just sounds like they just added a new button you have to press every 2min to not fall behind. :S
I like the idea of adding macro, but not this way :\
On June 29 2008 14:32 VIB wrote: I don't understand the gas boost thing. Is it simply extra gas every 2min if you press a button? Isn't it always more efficient to use it whenever the cooldown is up (unless getting attacked of course)? How does that adds any extra strategy? Just sounds like they just added a new button you have to press every 2min to not fall behind. :S
The skill doesn't give extra gas just lets more workers in so you still have to take workers off minerals i don't think i would constantly use it
Am I the only one who hates the idea of having to pay extra attention on gas production every few minutes at all gas expansions just because blizzard cannot accept that the much better solution is to remove MBS and automine? This is ridiculous, one useless feature leads to another. They want to make the game more challening but what they really do is destroying the game feel, it becomes so awkward because it forces the gamer to do one-two unneccessary things at certain times to get ahead of his opponent rather than simply letting him manage things better like in SC. That crap reminds me of endless item-management in games like Diablo 2 while you actually want to bash monsters, NO IT IS NOT FUN TO MANAGE ITEMS, NOT FOR COMPETITIVE GAMERS!!)
On June 29 2008 18:00 FrozenArbiter wrote: Hehe I sort of feel that way, it seems a little contrived
Lots of people complain about "sbs being like an arcade game" or whatever, well, this is much closer to that. But we'll see, it could be very good.
This do not make lesser players games any more complicated at all since you can easily live with less gas and more mins instead.
All the ability does is trade minerals for gas, but it costs a lot of clicks and timing since i assume that the workers do not auto go back to minerals when its done and you have to remember when the next time to gas boost is. For high lvl players gas is worth more than minerals, but for low level players its the other way around so this ability targets perfectly on the learning curve. An average player might use it for rushes etc, a noob wont use it at all and the highend players will use it constantly to pump gas heavy armies.
It might seem more forced than sbs but it certainly is more balanced (Expensive units costs a lot less clicks than cheap with sbs) and do not alienate the lesser players at all.
Atleast to me this solution seems very elegant.
Edit: And I do not thik that every pro wants to get gas over minerals all of the time either, so this is not just a "Do it every time its up" type of ability.
On June 29 2008 17:43 ForAdun wrote: Am I the only one who hates the idea of having to pay extra attention on gas production every few minutes at all gas expansions just because blizzard cannot accept that the much better solution is to remove MBS and automine? This is ridiculous, one useless feature leads to another. They want to make the game more challening but what they really do is destroying the game feel, it becomes so awkward because it forces the gamer to do one-two unneccessary things at certain times to get ahead of his opponent rather than simply letting him manage things better like in SC. That crap reminds me of endless item-management in games like Diablo 2 while you actually want to bash monsters, NO IT IS NOT FUN TO MANAGE ITEMS, NOT FOR COMPETITIVE GAMERS!!)
On June 29 2008 18:00 FrozenArbiter wrote: Hehe I sort of feel that way, it seems a little contrived
Lots of people complain about "sbs being like an arcade game" or whatever, well, this is much closer to that. But we'll see, it could be very good.
This do not make lesser players games any more complicated at all since you can easily live with less gas and more mins instead.
All the ability does is trade minerals for gas, but it costs a lot of clicks and timing since i assume that the workers do not auto go back to minerals when its done and you have to remember when the next time to gas boost is. For high lvl players gas is worth more than minerals, but for low level players its the other way around so this ability targets perfectly on the learning curve. An average player might use it for rushes etc, a noob wont use it at all and the highend players will use it constantly to pump gas heavy armies.
It might seem more forced than sbs but it certainly is more balanced (Expensive units costs a lot less clicks than cheap with sbs) and do not alienate the lesser players at all.
Atleast to me this solution seems very elegant.
Edit: And I do not thik that every pro wants to get gas over minerals all of the time either, so this is not just a "Do it every time its up" type of ability.
Yeah, people already do gas juggling, so this could be another level of that I guess. Good points.
it shouldnt be every 2 minutes it should be max 3 times (2 minutes min intervals) per game that could add some better strategy
No it wouldn't, you'd just use them ASAP to get the extra gas.
I don't like this change at all. When there are innovative ideas such as how reapers were produced (instant production, recharges over time), warp gates, the old thor, and mobile zerg larvae, I... can't see how this adds value to the game. Especially not if gas is what allows you to build the really potent units to the extent it is in BW (thus more gas > more minerals almost anywhere. Probably.)
I've heard some of the above were taken out, and that saddened me a lot. I'd much rather see methods like that used than this boring 'go back to base, hit button to not lose game in 15 minutes' crap.
I´m warming up to the gas idea. From another source it´s described that you can "add" more gas to a empty geyser by paying Minerals. Meaning that this won´t even come up with Maps with increased Resource deposits (all current played SC Maps have more Resourced per "base" than Official Blizzard ones had AFAIK).
That makes expanding a bit more complex and suggests (not forces) you to expand. Compared to manualmine this is a lot more userfriendly.
That's a horrible solution not only because of reasons already stated but also because for example in tvz when facing many ultras you can kill certain amounts and know he won't be able to remake them all but when you can increase your economy just by clicking something it breaks the whole way economy works
On June 29 2008 19:23 HaLLeBaRy wrote: That's a horrible solution not only because of reasons already stated but also because for example in tvz when facing many ultras you can kill certain amounts and know he won't be able to remake them all but when you can increase your economy just by clicking something it breaks the whole way economy works
no it doesn't. You are aware of his ability to boost gas and thus any pumping up of gas-heavy-units shall not be unexpected
On June 29 2008 19:23 HaLLeBaRy wrote: That's a horrible solution not only because of reasons already stated but also because for example in tvz when facing many ultras you can kill certain amounts and know he won't be able to remake them all but when you can increase your economy just by clicking something it breaks the whole way economy works
no it doesn't. You are aware of his ability to boost gas and thus any pumping up of gas-heavy-units shall not be unexpected
But you don't know if hes choosing to do it or not unless they make this not lose any minerals in which case there's no reason not to use it and that's just a stupid replacement for sc1 macro
I like the idea, but I think a better tweak would be to have it togglable at all times, but rather it drains your vespene resource faster. So instead of the 1:1 ratio we have now (you take 8, the vespene count goes down by 8), you might take 8 but the count goes down 16. The reason why I like the idea is as mentioned before, it's another step of gas toggling, and if it were in SC I can already thinking of some nifty terran metal timing pushes that can be spawned off of that mechanic.
On June 29 2008 20:17 Southlight wrote: I like the idea, but I think a better tweak would be to have it togglable at all times, but rather it drains your vespene resource faster. So instead of the 1:1 ratio we have now (you take 8, the vespene count goes down by 8), you might take 8 but the count goes down 16. The reason why I like the idea is as mentioned before, it's another step of gas toggling, and if it were in SC I can already thinking of some nifty terran metal timing pushes that can be spawned off of that mechanic.
That's horrible you'd have to predict terran pushes that can come before than they should because of this ability? This just rapes timing
On June 29 2008 19:57 BlackStar wrote: Strange thing is pro MBS people seem to like it.
Even stranger is that pro sbs people seems to hate it eventhough its the same thing but in a different package.
And not its not just another button to press. You have to time when the cooldown is ready, just like you have to time unit production. Then you have to go back to your base, select 3 workers which just turned in minerals and then tell them to mine gas, when they arrive at the extractor activate the ability, go back to do other stuff for 30 secs or whatever the time is and then you need to go back and reissue them to the mineral line, repeat when the cooldown is up.
Now, if you do this for several bases macro load will get very comparable to sbs macro however the low-end players wont even care about this since to them minerals is the shit. In the end, low end players wont suffer at all from this, high end players still get a huge advantage from the macro tasks and everyone should be happy.
Why is this better than sbs? Since its an option. Building units is not an option, its a requirement.
On June 29 2008 19:23 HaLLeBaRy wrote: That's a horrible solution not only because of reasons already stated but also because for example in tvz when facing many ultras you can kill certain amounts and know he won't be able to remake them all but when you can increase your economy just by clicking something it breaks the whole way economy works
no it doesn't. You are aware of his ability to boost gas and thus any pumping up of gas-heavy-units shall not be unexpected
But you don't know if hes choosing to do it or not.
In starcraft you do not know if he choses to have 3 workers or not in the extractor either -_-
On June 29 2008 19:57 BlackStar wrote: Strange thing is pro MBS people seem to like it.
Even stranger is that pro sbs people seems to hate it eventhough its the same thing but in a different package.
And not its not just another button to press. You have to time when the cooldown is ready, just like you have to time unit production. Then you have to go back to your base, select 3 workers which just turned in minerals and then tell them to mine gas, when they arrive at the extractor activate the ability, go back to do other stuff for 30 secs or whatever the time is and then you need to go back and reissue them to the mineral line, repeat when the cooldown is up.
Now, if you do this for several bases macro load will get very comparable to sbs macro however the low-end players wont even care about this since to them minerals is the shit. In the end, low end players wont suffer at all from this, high end players still get a huge advantage from the macro tasks and everyone should be happy.
Why is this better than sbs? Since its an option. Building units is not an option, its a requirement.
On June 29 2008 19:23 HaLLeBaRy wrote: That's a horrible solution not only because of reasons already stated but also because for example in tvz when facing many ultras you can kill certain amounts and know he won't be able to remake them all but when you can increase your economy just by clicking something it breaks the whole way economy works
no it doesn't. You are aware of his ability to boost gas and thus any pumping up of gas-heavy-units shall not be unexpected
But you don't know if hes choosing to do it or not.
In starcraft you do not know if he choses to have 3 workers or not in the extractor either -_-
you NEED 3 workers in the extractor taking some out is only good early game to expo faster thats just crazy no one is going to leave 2 in it. You've got that backwards by the way with sbs it's not just " you have no choice but to make units" you choose which units to make when to make them , this ability on the other hand leans more towards the " do it or you'll fall behind" category
On June 29 2008 19:57 BlackStar wrote: Strange thing is pro MBS people seem to like it.
Even stranger is that pro sbs people seems to hate it eventhough its the same thing but in a different package.
And not its not just another button to press. You have to time when the cooldown is ready, just like you have to time unit production. Then you have to go back to your base, select 3 workers which just turned in minerals and then tell them to mine gas, when they arrive at the extractor activate the ability, go back to do other stuff for 30 secs or whatever the time is and then you need to go back and reissue them to the mineral line, repeat when the cooldown is up.
Now, if you do this for several bases macro load will get very comparable to sbs macro however the low-end players wont even care about this since to them minerals is the shit. In the end, low end players wont suffer at all from this, high end players still get a huge advantage from the macro tasks and everyone should be happy.
Why is this better than sbs? Since its an option. Building units is not an option, its a requirement.
On June 29 2008 20:14 HaLLeBaRy wrote:
On June 29 2008 20:04 Cheerio wrote:
On June 29 2008 19:23 HaLLeBaRy wrote: That's a horrible solution not only because of reasons already stated but also because for example in tvz when facing many ultras you can kill certain amounts and know he won't be able to remake them all but when you can increase your economy just by clicking something it breaks the whole way economy works
no it doesn't. You are aware of his ability to boost gas and thus any pumping up of gas-heavy-units shall not be unexpected
But you don't know if hes choosing to do it or not.
In starcraft you do not know if he choses to have 3 workers or not in the extractor either -_-
you NEED 3 workers in the extractor taking some out is only good early game to expo faster thats just crazy no one is going to leave 2 in it.
Edit: oh sorry, You commented on that other ability, nvm then... Please quote what you are refering to or people can missinterpret what you are saying.
On June 29 2008 20:35 HaLLeBaRy wrote: You've got that backwards by the way with sbs it's not just " you have no choice but to make units" you choose which units to make when to make them , this ability on the other hand leans more towards the " do it or you'll fall behind" category
So you can play starcraft without producing units, thats news to me!
Just to make it clearer, sbs does not add the choice of which units to build, just makes it a chore to build them. You can not draw on the complexity of unit choice since thats still there with mbs.
Whatever it's pointless to argue over this ability anyway it's never going to get past beta unless blizzard ignores all the complaints which are definitely going to come. This is almost the same as giving a building that makes free units every minute and you have to keep making the free unit or you fall behind
Man clear up your thoughts and READ the upper posts!
first you say But you don't know if hes choosing to do it or not. then this ability on the other hand leans more towards the " do it or you'll fall behind" category =contradiction
And if you think making units is not a requirement and a choice between 1) gas 2) minerals + apm + wasted workers time spent on queing and moving between minerals and gas is not an option I can't see what can we talk about
Although i'm reserving judgment on the issue for now, as one cannot tell how this mechanic will perform, i do wonder if this will be too useful for Protoss (as i am a protoss player)
Currently, there's no matchup where i feel like i need an extra X gas, just having more bases with geysers does the trick; and only when im playing a fast arb build vs T or needing gas for the first templar and storm vs Z is where i'd be using this in SC1..
I dont know how gas heavy things will be in sc2, but if expanding become similar to Sc1 (which it probably will) i dont see how this will serve too much of a purpose other that rare instances throughout a game =/
on that note 2 minute cooldown is rather rediculous.. thats like 7 times in a 14 minute game =/ (obviously less in reality)
It is different because in SC it is up to you what you want to do to get ahead of your opponent while in SC2 you must build in (a weird form of) gas management into your play. Forcing players to do certain stuff that is not neccessary is utterly retarded. Like they want to make competitive gamers walk a thin line as if competitors must be punished for being competitive......
When you're building units and workers there is a very definate sense of progress. Every extra worker is more minerals, now and forever. Every extra unit is, hey, a unit! They kill shit for you! I don't think it's unfair to say that constructing buildings and units is fun by itself, and at least something of why macro can be considered fun in and of itself.
Perfecting it isn't a pain, in other words, but a pleasure. This task... well. On the one hand, yes, it will probably create some interesting early build options. We could probably do the same with, I dunno, increasing the number of possible workers on gas or something like that, I'm sure the ratios could work out roughly the same if that's important. On the downside, it's boring as heck and isn't an extension of anything that makes the game fun in the first place.
On June 29 2008 21:16 ForAdun wrote: It is different because in SC it is up to you what you want to do to get ahead of your opponent while in SC2 you must build in (a weird form of) gas management into your play. Forcing players to do certain stuff that is not neccessary is utterly retarded. Like they want to make competitive gamers walk a thin line as if competitors must be punished for being competitive......
So you do mean that you do not have to build in unit production into your strats in starcraft? Even if you have only a few raxes you still need to dedicate time to go back and que up units, its impossible to go around.
Early everyone can manage the gas juggling, but when you have multiple expansions and your enemy is pressuring you it starts to get really tricky to do it well exactly like how sbs works.
On June 29 2008 21:24 Tracil wrote: Every extra unit is, hey, a unit! They kill shit for you! I don't think it's unfair to say that constructing buildings and units is fun by itself, and at least something of why macro can be considered fun in and of itself.
Um, gathering resources is a part in constructing units, now they only moved the clicsk from actually clicking the unit icon to clicking the extractor icon and moving workers around...
On June 29 2008 21:24 Tracil wrote: On the downside, it's boring as heck and isn't an extension of anything that makes the game fun in the first place.
Why is clicking on this building more boring than clicking on other buildings? You get more gas doing it, which allows you to build more interesting units which allows you to win which is fun. Its exactly the same as sbs.
On June 29 2008 21:16 ForAdun wrote: It is different because in SC it is up to you what you want to do to get ahead of your opponent while in SC2 you must build in (a weird form of) gas management into your play. Forcing players to do certain stuff that is not neccessary is utterly retarded. Like they want to make competitive gamers walk a thin line as if competitors must be punished for being competitive......
So you do mean that you do not have to build in unit production into your strats in starcraft? Even if you have only a few raxes you still need to dedicate time to go back and que up units, its impossible to go around.
Early everyone can manage the gas juggling, but when you have multiple expansions and your enemy is pressuring you it starts to get really tricky to do it well exactly like how sbs works.
On June 29 2008 21:24 Tracil wrote: Every extra unit is, hey, a unit! They kill shit for you! I don't think it's unfair to say that constructing buildings and units is fun by itself, and at least something of why macro can be considered fun in and of itself.
Um, gathering resources is a part in constructing units, now they only moved the clicsk from actually clicking the unit icon to clicking the extractor icon and moving workers around...
On June 29 2008 21:24 Tracil wrote: On the downside, it's boring as heck and isn't an extension of anything that makes the game fun in the first place.
Why is clicking on this building more boring than clicking on other buildings? You get more gas doing it, which allows you to build more interesting units which allows you to win which is fun. Its exactly the same as sbs.
I don't get why you think it works like SBS, hello it doesn't? SBS (or MBS) is a basic way how you are able to manage all your buildings. Alright, I think I once heard about such thing as game controls. And then we have this (new! impressive! flubbertastic!) getting quicker gas by clicking some weird button on your refineries or adding more workers to them and that way raising your gas count which is just a weird idea of some guy who ran out of ideas because he's so stubborn not to accept reality which is that MBS is for sissies and has to come up with some seriously retarded press-me-and-I-will-say-that-I-love-you-and-give-you-some-extra-vespene-gas-while-I'm-at-it idea and he actually thinks he will satisfy skilled gamers with that brainfart. Yeah, brainfart it is. "He" is meant to be the crew working out the SC2 gameplay, btw.
So, lets see: I will now put 3-4 workers into my refinery. Cool, it works. "Hey dude (random guy sitting next to you and watching you play), it's time to send some extra workers into your refinery, you know!" What? Did that random guy just tell me what to do? That guy who just bought the game, read about the features and believes he knows anything at all? Yeah, he did! The bad news is: he's actually right! Lets follow his instructions.
...
A few minutes later...
"Hey dude, it's time to send..." KILL KILL KILL!!!
I exaggerated just a little bit but you get my point.
I'm sure any good player will say this idea sucks really bad and all the pro mbs noobs will say it's good because they know deep down it sucks and if it gets put in mbs will probably stay
Exept that´s not how it works apperantly. Instead of temporary more workers you can "drill deeper" for minerals to open up more gas in that geyser. Situation being: Geyser empty. What to do? 1. Send the workers to mine minerals. 2. Spend minerals to earn more gas.
What you do depends on several factors: Do you need gas? Do you want to /can you expand? Is the Mineral -> Gas Trade worth it in the current situation? I could go on.
The point is that you aren´t clicking for more gas but "trading" Minerals for Gas. In SC we had lots of juggling in production to keep both resources "out of the bank", now we have another option to do so.
On June 29 2008 21:24 Tracil wrote: It IS different to sbs.
Imagine MBS is tatally accepted. Imagine even more: they want to ban SBS comletelly meaning u can select only all of your gateways at a time. Now that's stupid isn't it? Why would you force player to build x6 zealots or x6 goons at a time if he needs 2 zealots and 2 goons 1 DT and 1 HT? The player sacrifices his apm to make a more useful unit mix. Now to the lesser extent the banning gas-thing is the same stupid thing. You are given choice to sacrifice apm+minerals+workers_time to have some more gas. What's wrong? Yes it gives an advantege if the the gas is very precious but at a price, just like SBS does in terms of unit mix. But in most cases it will not be worth it, much better to expand or take the gas earlier if you really need it, just as you can use MBS to get unit mix over time (6 zeals + 6 goons + occasional SBselected DTs and HTs). But when a pinch comes you may desperetly need it to pump gas (just as you may desperetly need to use SBS even though MBS is there), and it will be usefull. Now you wouldn't ban SBS, why would you ban the gas trick?
P.S. generally I think the idea is better then taking out MBS but it IS artificial and I would rather blizzard add macro some other way.
On June 29 2008 22:07 HaLLeBaRy wrote: I'm sure any good player will say this idea sucks really bad and all the pro mbs noobs will say it's good because they know deep down it sucks and if it gets put in mbs will probably stay
in other words all who are against - good players, and all who are for it - noobs? Nice way to carry a discussion. I suggest you get banned from sc2 section.
On June 29 2008 22:10 Unentschieden wrote: Exept that´s not how it works apperantly. Instead of temporary more workers you can "drill deeper" for minerals to open up more gas in that geyser. Situation being: Geyser empty. What to do? 1. Send the workers to mine minerals. 2. Spend minerals to earn more gas.
What you do depends on several factors: Do you need gas? Do you want to /can you expand? Is the Mineral -> Gas Trade worth it in the current situation? I could go on.
The point is that you aren´t clicking for more gas but "trading" Minerals for Gas. In SC we had lots of juggling in production to keep both resources "out of the bank", now we have another option to do so.
Yeah what if this isn't just a button but sending more workers to gas for this 30secs? Like they can enter and leave Refinery/etc 2x faster? Add that Blizzard will favor 2 gazers on it's maps...? And new workers mine 6 (or as I read 5) minerals per cycle?
Talking about mining less minerals I'm little scared if it won't turn SC2 totally into W3, with much less expansions because every expansion is too expensive for long time in game?
On June 29 2008 23:20 MrRammstein wrote: ok but how to do it? click Starcraft II Gameplay and wait?
I just clik and then a downloading window pop up
Edit : At starcraft-esp (spanish community) they have 1st review of Protoss, Terran, Zerg If a spanish can read it and tell us if there is new informations. I would be gratefull
mm you don't use Mozilla? it opened liked stream, no download or pause options :/ played for second and just paused itself :/ can anyone upload torrent of it to VODs section?
On June 29 2008 22:56 MrRammstein wrote: Yeah what if this isn't just a button but sending more workers to gas for this 30secs? Like they can enter and leave Refinery/etc 2x faster? Add that Blizzard will favor 2 gazers on it's maps...? And new workers mine 6 (or as I read 5) minerals per cycle?
Talking about mining less minerals I'm little scared if it won't turn SC2 totally into W3, with much less expansions because every expansion is too expensive for long time in game?
That just came up in Battle.net:
Cavez wrote: Here is how it works. All numbers are subject to change. We have changed the balance since the WWI build and will be fiddling with the balance this coming week for sure.
You start with two Vespene Geysers in your base and at every expansion (some maps will not do this of course, but all the WWI maps do). Optimal number of workers per gas collection building is 3 (so you need 6 total).
All gas collection buildings start with a certain amount of gas (like SC1). I believe it's 1000 in your WWI build.
When a gas collector runs out it becomes "depleted" (like SC1). A depleted gas collector still allows you to harvest some gas (like SC1). In the WWI build you collect 6 gas per trip from a working gas collector and 2 gas per trip when depleted.
All gas collectors have a "Restore Gas" (name temp) button that you can use to return your gas collector to a non-depleted state. In the WWI build this gets you 400 gas back into your collector. Restoring Gas costs 100 minerals and takes the gas collector down for 45 seconds (all numbers temp).
Like all things this is work-in-progress, but here is what we have seen in the games we have played:
1) You can choose how much gas you want. The more gas you want, the less minerals you will have. If you build your 2nd gas collector too soon, you may have the wrong resource mix. If you go gas too late, you may have the wrong resource mix. If you use "Restore Gas" too few times you may not have enough gas to do some of the crazy end-game stuff. If you use it to often early on you may have too much gas and not enough minerals.
2) Some of the more mass-able units are very, very gas heavy. You can scout a player and gain some sense which way he is headed based on how quickly he goes for double gas.
3) Sometimes you don't want to "Restore Gas" if you need just a little more gas in the short term because you are trying to tech or build something critical. Since it takes down your gas collector for 45 seconds you may need to hold if you are close to being able to afford something that requires gas. This of course damages your gas collection for the long haul which makes the choice difficult.
Why we are trying it:
1) We think gas could be more interesting than it was in the original StarCraft.
2) We think StarCraft 2 can benefit from additional economy choices.
I think that's all of it. Now that you have complete information, please discuss. =) Sorry for the forum spam. I don't have the tools handy to deal with it.
Later: Minerals are down to 5 per trip, but they harvest a little more quickly. We have been doing some timed comparisons of minerals in the original SC to SC2 and we have been really putting a lot of effort into getting the collection rate to be the same. The pathing is SO much better in SC2 that we were collecting minerals at a ferocious rate.
So now mineral collection is pretty close to SC1.
I like that they try to make the economy more complex and involving. More depht is definetly better than just "press button for more gas every 2 minutes". 2 Geysers are supposed to make it easier to tell what economic strategy your enemy might try, actually there is a lot more "visualization" apparant in SC2 then SC. Didn´t they say that they wanted to make every upgrade visible is reasonable?
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.
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.
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.
If anything slapping a mineral cost on it makes more sense than a flat cooldown for two reasons:
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.
Since when is 45 seconds "split second"? How would YOU increase Economical comlexity? The old system was actually quite limiting since you had to adapt your Unit composition to resource ratios which lead to quite different Maps than the official ones.
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.
ForAdun, why not try to think of POSITIVE things with this new mechanic, instead of just pointing out (your perceived) negative ones. I haven't seen you say one positive thing ever. If you want to try to argue a point, you should show it from both sides.
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.
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)...
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
Then don't buy it.
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)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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...
The new gas mechanic is going to add a lot of complexity to resource management and to the variety of build orders you can do. I love it. I'm glad to see Blizzard can come up with these kind of good ideas.
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.
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.
Thouse features are what made Singleplayer great. The knowledge that there always be a item that´s just a bit stronger... endless monsterstream true, but that makes it so brilliant that Blizzard managed to keep the player motivated through 3 difficulties. If you think it´s to easy I DARE you to play Hardcore.
Multiplayer is intended for Coop-play and imho that works. PvP is meh but honestly, thats not what D2 is about.
On June 30 2008 04:14 ForAdun wrote: WC3 with the heroes, creeps and bad resource gathering system.
You are entitled to your opinion but these features make WC3 different not worse. I´d be surprised to find anyone who would like SC and WC3 equally, thouse games are just to different. You could say that resource gathering is actually better since there are slight differences between the races.
On June 30 2008 04:14 ForAdun wrote: 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.
The problem seems to be that you hate exactly the things that define the games. I´m surprised you mention D3 since at this point the information how much it will be like D2 can only be guessed.
On June 30 2008 04:14 ForAdun wrote: 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?
A helpfull poster already did the math with the current numbers:
craftmatic2 wrote:
1) Spend 100 minerals = permanent loss of 100 minerals.
2) Permanently Lose ~45 seconds worth of "fumes", which I calculate to be somewhere between 60 and 100 gas.
3) Gain 400 gas in the extractor, but 2/6 of this you also would have mined anyway in LESS time without this mechanic. 2/6 of 400 ~133.
4) So basicly, for about the next minute or so, the person using this mechanic is actually behind in gas AND permanently behind in minerals, forever. It actually takes about 3 or 4 minutes for the ability to pay for itself by the time you count the opportunity cost of the 45 seconds of lost fumes, and the fact that 1/3 of the gas was yours either way.
5) Once again, there is no long term benefit from this mechanic, and the "short term" benefit occurs about 3 minutes or so after you use it. You will get a superficial spike in your gas, but you will not have enough minerals to be able to spend it anyway.
Of course minerals are crucial and so is expanding - this feature never will substitute expanding but What can be estimated time of worker after worker delivering gas? 2-3seconds?
45seconds / 3 = 15 turns worth of 2 gas from depleted geyser each 15 cycles * 2gas = 30gas - not 60 or 100
45 / 2 * 2 = 45 - closer to 60 but no way 100
What is 100minerals? 4 Zerglings? 2Marines? Zealot?
What is additional 267gas mined? 2 Siege Tanks? Almost an Archon? Colossus?
This gas mechanic will not solve anything. It is about x10 more useless than SBS and who ever DOESN'T use it 100% of the time will be at a severe disadvantage. It adds nothing but useless complexity and is really bordering on making sc a clickfest.
Bravo Blizzard, I love this line of thinking. They're adding in more macro complexity - both strategy and multitasking - without artificial interface constraints. Fixing depleted geysers is nice, but it only takes effect later in the game.
How about an assimilator ability that cost minerals, makes your gas unharvestable for say 45 seconds, but then gives you 3x the gas for 45 seconds after that? Then you still get the multitasking requirements (click, take workers off, put workers on), and an interesting mechanic of trading minerals for gas (with a short-term gas drop), but it takes effect early-game, letting you do more interesting builds like timing your gas to spike when your factories are built or something.
Mutated larvae will also add some interesting variety in timing attacks (e.g. you could save up more larvae with fewer hatcheries for when your spire finishes - and proxy larvae).
On the gas trick: I believe the exact math is easy to change, they can frinstance make it so you pay like 75mins to boost the gas structure capacity to 2 peons at a time and at the same time boost their carrying capacity 2x for 50s.. and even if not so useful in normal conditions, you could find it useful with a mineral only expo in your nat or something along these lines.
So far we have terrans with the gas trick and make-2-marines-at-a-time addons (are they still present?), zerg with their mutated larva.. but what can the protoss do with their macro hungry apm?
edit: ooh yes I seem to remember something about a warp-in feature which is a bit more effective then normal production.. does someone know what it is about?
And another thing - the terran anti-air tower is detectoring again? I believe I saw someone building it behind the mineral lines against burrowed units, I think it was in that Naruto vs blizzguy match?
On June 30 2008 08:40 Polemarch wrote: Bravo Blizzard, I love this line of thinking. They're adding in more macro complexity - both strategy and multitasking - without artificial interface constraints. Fixing depleted geysers is nice, but it only takes effect later in the game.
How about an assimilator ability that cost minerals, makes your gas unharvestable for say 45 seconds, but then gives you 3x the gas for 45 seconds after that? Then you still get the multitasking requirements (click, take workers off, put workers on), and an interesting mechanic of trading minerals for gas (with a short-term gas drop), but it takes effect early-game, letting you do more interesting builds like timing your gas to spike when your factories are built or something.
Mutated larvae will also add some interesting variety in timing attacks (e.g. you could save up more larvae with fewer hatcheries for when your spire finishes - and proxy larvae).
Yeah, lets flood the game with more and more stuff like that, we all want an interface that is so full of all reasonable, exciting and important options that make an RTS game so unique. We want to have multi-leveled vespene geysers that can be gathered from with upgraded workers that have really huge legs like the colossus and we want a vespeneral, a combination of gas and minerals that is created when workers take a dump and it can be socketed into units to make them more powerful and... and we also want a powerbooster built in the back of workers to make them gather faster for some minutes and yeah I think it would be sooo cool to have a worker-school that teaches them to solve math problems while we're at it. I also want them to fall in love with each other that would add so much depth to the game.
On June 30 2008 09:11 Jibba wrote: Wow, Mothership is more awful than I had ever imagined.
Yeah, mothership looks like a piece of shit. How would you ever get it to your enemies base unless you just happened to take your opponents nautral, lol.
On June 30 2008 09:11 Jibba wrote: Wow, Mothership is more awful than I had ever imagined.
Yeah, mothership looks like a piece of shit. How would you ever get it to your enemies base unless you just happened to take your opponents nautral, lol.
Not only that, but the time bomb is just a defense mechanism for how much it sucks.
My only worry after watching the demo is that the game is too defense oriented, but I guess that's not the case if avg games are lasting 20 minutes.
On June 30 2008 09:11 Jibba wrote: Wow, Mothership is more awful than I had ever imagined.
Yeah, mothership looks like a piece of shit. How would you ever get it to your enemies base unless you just happened to take your opponents nautral, lol.
Not only that, but the time bomb is just a defense mechanism for how much it sucks.
My only worry after watching the demo is that the game is too defense oriented, but I guess that's not the case if avg games are lasting 20 minutes.
Thanks ForAdun, you cheered up my crappy day.
Zerg looks A LOT more defense oriented.
Mothership looks like pretty lame.
AKA USELESS.
Right now protoss is looking to be the most interesting with the exception of the mothership.
On June 30 2008 09:11 Jibba wrote: Wow, Mothership is more awful than I had ever imagined.
Yeah... it just needs to go. It's never going to work.
They tried it as a one unit powerhouse, wasn't Starcraft-esque and too overpowered with black hole. They try it as a multiple allowed, slow moving, spell casting unit and it becomes worthless. Among other things.
The basic idea they had for the Mothership won't work in SC, it's plain and simple.
Instead of guesstimating how much gas I would get from leaving my guys on the gas port I made a test map. My gas numbers:
50 gas was mined in ~45 seconds using 2 gas per scv. 400 gas was mined in ~1:40 using 8 gas per scv.
To mine 400 gas with 6 gas per trip it would take 17 more trips (400 / 8 = 50, 400 / 6 = 66.6), which would take around ~40 more seconds.
So in ~3:05 you can mine 400 gas (cooldown included). But if you don't spend minerals ... It takes ~6:00 to mine 400 gas if you only pull in 2 gas per trip.
Overall if you really need gas then the thing to do is pay and wait for the investment to pay off. You do mine gas almost twice as fast as you normally would so this is very beneficial for depleted geysers.
Please note the following:
These numbers are all from mining from a single gas port. I used the in game clock to time these because if there were cooldowns they would be going off the in game clock as well and not off a real time clock. I used 3 scv's mining from a depleted gas source for the first set of numbers and from a gas source with 400 for the second set of numbers and I calculated how much time it would take for 17 trips by counting them and viewing the game clock. The times are not 100% accurate, they are +/- 1-2 seconds off and can vary depending on how the geyser is setup in relation to the command center.
I have to say, the new gas mechanic is genius. It adds so much to timing and builds....basically, it multiplies the number of viable builds by at least two.
And to the people saying you will 'have' to do it all the time, that isn't true. If you use it you will run out of gas sooner, so it comes at a cost. Also, there are a lot of timing issues to, for example, if someone uses it and attacks you, if you hold them off, you can counter by starting your fast gas while being attacked. So its a lot more cognitive than just remembering to do something every two minutes.
Even if it doesn't end up working out, its still a very interesting idea and I'm glad they are testing it.
The gas thing does seem really cool and different. It's looking sooo good now.
Also, does anyone know if when a SCV builds something it stays in one place or does it still move around to opposite corners of the building like in SC1?
On June 30 2008 10:20 fight_or_flight wrote: I have to say, the new gas mechanic is genius. It adds so much to timing and builds....basically, it multiplies the number of viable builds by at least two.
And to the people saying you will 'have' to do it all the time, that isn't true. If you use it you will run out of gas sooner, so it comes at a cost. Also, there are a lot of timing issues to, for example, if someone uses it and attacks you, if you hold them off, you can counter by starting your fast gas while being attacked. So its a lot more cognitive than just remembering to do something every two minutes.
Even if it doesn't end up working out, its still a very interesting idea and I'm glad they are testing it.
I'm glad they are testing alternatives as well, but think about it, who doesn't want faster gas? You don't even need to take off additional workers to have this give you faster gas. This will affect early-game, and compound in mid-game and late-game. Getting 1 or 2 tanks out faster is something we can all use and the player who can consistently use this gas speed will always compound his lead over ones who do not. Further, what exactly do you lose by doing it? Saying you run out of gas faster isn't really a big deal as you won't exactly be losing any gas, you will just be using it faster.
On June 29 2008 20:54 Plexa wrote: Although i'm reserving judgment on the issue for now, as one cannot tell how this mechanic will perform, i do wonder if this will be too useful for Protoss (as i am a protoss player)
Currently, there's no matchup where i feel like i need an extra X gas, just having more bases with geysers does the trick; and only when im playing a fast arb build vs T or needing gas for the first templar and storm vs Z is where i'd be using this in SC1..
I dont know how gas heavy things will be in sc2, but if expanding become similar to Sc1 (which it probably will) i dont see how this will serve too much of a purpose other that rare instances throughout a game =/
on that note 2 minute cooldown is rather rediculous.. thats like 7 times in a 14 minute game =/ (obviously less in reality)
You cannot compare SC2 to SCBW in anyway concerning the economic aspect. Especially cause geysers deplete rly fast in the current maps (1k gas each) and you need to take both geysers in your main (in the current build / maps @ wwi) to have about the gas you'd get from 1-1.5 normal geyser output in SCBW. That plus workers return just 5 mins but their pathing is ALOT better so it feels like more.
All in all its impossible to compare and the gas mechanic, especially on the WWI low gas maps in certain matchups where its challenging to expo. To me personally with playing zerg for about 60 games it felt like a really nice mechanic as it allows you to deviate at alot of turns and the low gas in the geysers forces you to expand at a certain rate so it limits certain windows where you can try things and it puts a certain pace on the game. Generally I really enjoyed the mechanic. Theres alot of shit I dont like though which ill make a thread about later ^^.
That is even worse than what I thought. The gas restore will pretty much only help out the player with less map control, otherwise, if you had map control you would just save up another 300 and throw down another expo and get 5k gas and a new min line as well. This might work in late-game near draws but I don't see it being practical at all.
It´s not a "press button, recieve gas" mechanic. You "trade" a exaustive resource for a "endless" one.
That's what they've changed it to since WWI, they're still experimenting but I think it'll rapidly become obvious the more worker mechanic is more interesting. They said somewhere else that they won't do both, they'll do one or the other.
I'm answering question for another 2 hours or somthing in the WWI SC2 VOD's thread if people wanna shoot some things they wanna know.
I'm mostly knowlegable about zerg though as I played more then 75% of my 70-80 games I played with that race as I found it the most interesting race yet.
On July 01 2008 03:19 Nyovne wrote: Motherships unit summon and the slow projectiles (time warp?) abilties are actually pretty damn ass good.
The time bomb is only a way to protect the Mothership because it's so incredibly vulnerable. You could just make the Mothership not-ass and remove Time Bomb and it'd be just as good.
In the WWI build, if you have 10 gateways et clic once on "Zealot", it builds only 1 zealot (even if you have 100000 minerals). So, if you want 7 zealots + 3 goon from your 10 gateways you have to : zzzzzzzddd.
If you are terran and group a barrack with a barrack with addon (not the reactor addon, the other one, I don't remember the name), and if you press "mmmm" it will build 4 marines in the first barrack. You have to TAB to build in the barrack+addon.
On July 01 2008 17:25 Nitro68 wrote: Nobody speaks of the new MBS system !
In the WWI build, if you have 10 gateways et clic once on "Zealot", it builds only 1 zealot (even if you have 100000 minerals). So, if you want 7 zealots + 3 goon from your 10 gateways you have to : zzzzzzzddd.
If you are terran and group a barrack with a barrack with addon (not the reactor addon, the other one, I don't remember the name), and if you press "mmmm" it will build 4 marines in the first barrack. You have to TAB to build in the barrack+addon.
Sounds good but where did you get this infro from?
On July 01 2008 03:23 mahnini wrote: That is even worse than what I thought. The gas restore will pretty much only help out the player with less map control, otherwise, if you had map control you would just save up another 300 and throw down another expo and get 5k gas and a new min line as well. This might work in late-game near draws but I don't see it being practical at all.
2k gas, since they changed that too...
Also if a player do this without map control his mineral line will deplete faster than before which means that this is sort of a panic comeback option for them and the player with map control can do this to increase his gas income even further without needing to bind up more supply to extra workers.
Commanding a group of Larvae was done by using a “select all” button at the selected Hatchery after which the Mutation of choice could be selected. The introduction of MBS practically removed this command limitation since it allowed you to give the same command to all identical selected buildings.
In response to Blizzard have now "nerfed" this ability in their latest Starcraft 2 build. It's no longer possible to start the production of 3 or 4 units by pressing a single key. With the new system the player has to give a separate command for each unit that he wants to produce. Example:
You select 3 Larva and want them to mutate into 3 Drones. Pressing the Drone production fastkey “D” once will cause only one of the 3 Larva to start the mutation process. So in order to create 3 Drones you now actually have to issue the command 3 separate times after you have them selected as a group.
The Hive Queen can now create "Mutant Larva" from regular Larva. There is no cost involved, except for build time (30 sec). When the Larva is evolved, it's becomes larger but does not gain any new abilities. Instead the player gains control over the Larva movement.
The ability of the regular Larva to mutate into most of the Zerg strains is improved dramatically: mutating a Mutant Larva into and of the strains only takes 2 seconds instead of the unit’s real build time.
Creep did not only have a visual makeover. The mechanic itself has since changed as well. The Creep now damages enemy buildings at a 2hp/sec rate giving a whole new meaning to offensive creeping (areas with creep are not suitable for construction for all races but the Zerg). Lack of creep also makes Zerg buildings loose HP at 2/sec, effectively increasing the importance of solid creepmanagement as a Zerg player.
Another new feature, as well as new unit is the Swarm. The Swarm is a Zerg creature that apparently lives inside buildings. When a building is destroyed, a number of Swarm creatures are spawned, depending on how prominent the building. Extractors and Spine Crawler produces none, while a Lair will produce over 15. They have a very short lifespan outside the building (like 4-5 seconds), and will all die simultaneously when time runs out. In the meanwhile, they can still hurt you, with their 4 Melee damage and fast attack speed. It's a fast ground unit with Light armour at +0. They have minimal health, and expires within very few seconds. This is a great way to stall intruders that have to spend time killing them, or manage to build a defence, and works great with the Zerg in general. It often kills, or decently damages at least one attacker, if it is in an early tier.
Speaking about the game's development, he explained that they were "about a third of the way through" the campaign, and were concentrating on story structure and cinematics at this point - commenting that by the end of the year, Blizzard should have something very impressive to show off. Looks like you can ask for something else for Christmas, then - a street date for StarCraft II is still a while away
The Zerg Queen got a big upgrade from SC1. She has transformed from a weak flying unit to a formidable base defender. Her new special abilities include:
Transfusion: the ability to heal buildings Deep Tunnel: the ability to teleport to any Zerg building Swarm Infestation: turn any Zerg building into an attacking unit Mutant Larvae: the ability to create units for instant counter attack As you can see, the new Zerg Queen can travel to any fight her units are engaged in on the map and change the tide of battle quickly. She is so powerful, that you will only be allowed to have one in game at any given time.
Interesting stuff. Also a better version of the original swarm, I don't feel like fighting the old clouds again, those cuties now will have much less of an impact...
Are they seriously making us Zerg have to single select every unit we want to build? That is a step backwards, even with MBS, and makes me very frustrated.
On July 01 2008 21:50 ForAdun wrote: Interesting stuff. Also a better version of the original swarm, I don't feel like fighting the old clouds again, those cuties now will have much less of an impact...
Dark swarm is still in the game last I heard, The Swarm is something different.
As for that "end of the year" comment, couldn't it just as easily mean Blizzcon (October, Q4)?
On July 01 2008 03:19 Nyovne wrote: Motherships unit summon and the slow projectiles (time warp?) abilties are actually pretty damn ass good.
The time bomb is only a way to protect the Mothership because it's so incredibly vulnerable. You could just make the Mothership not-ass and remove Time Bomb and it'd be just as good.
It's a support unit, it's supposed to have a huge ass army beneath it and its got an assload of hp and shield so vulnerable? It's just slow but thats it, it didn't look vulnerable to me at all.
On July 01 2008 22:44 TheOvermind77 wrote: Are they seriously making us Zerg have to single select every unit we want to build? That is a step backwards, even with MBS, and makes me very frustrated.
No it doesn't, you have every hatch per "base cluster" with a shared rally point under a single hotkey, press S and then just queue up whatever you feel like, its awsome.
Not as awsome as all gates under 1 hotkey and then just warp-in like 15 units instantly but still tt. Warp-in is really awsome but it seems really really strong.
edit: oh btw if you have a bunch of hatches lairs hives w/e selected under a hotkey it shows how many larvae there are available in the bottom right subscreen in the bottom right of the "select larvae" button. Kinda handy I guess but again making stuff easier and easier to macro which is rubbing me to wrong way. Too much of it.
On July 01 2008 23:26 Nyovne wrote: Kinda handy I guess but again making stuff easier and easier to macro which is rubbing me to wrong way. Too much of it.
I'm not sure how good the youtube video will be considering the videos real strong point is its clarity of the filmed screen. Otherwise the camera man is crap (shaky a lot of times)
I agree, there are much better videos out there. The vid doesn't really show us anything we haven't seen in other gameplay vids. And theres no real action, he just walks over the zerg, was it a comp? either way, pretty boring 30mins
The new gas macro mechanic is really really good. I love it, great step in the right direction of allowing pros to differentiate themselves by ultra-fine-tuning their builds.
ya, i can see why they bumped it down from 8 mins to 5 per trip; the improved pathing is very apparent in the video, when you can see the workers glide back and forth. no reaching the mineral field and turning to mine
Overseers can create a Changeling by spending energy. The Changeling is a small unstable Zerg creature with timed life. When he gets near an enemy structure or unit he will change shape into the correct basic unit type and color to match that player. So if you get near a Blue Barracks you become a Blue Marine. If you get near a Red Stalker you become a Red Zealot, etc.
Enemy players cannot control the Changeling. It's still owned and controled by the Zerg player who created it. It is very vulnerable and can be killed by a single hit from just about anything. The Changeling cannot fight. He is just a shapeshifter, when he looks like a Marine that gun in his hand isn't "real."
You can see that something is a Changeling by mousing over the unit, by trying (and failing) to drag select or by selecting the unit and seeing the name and portrait.
What it does for the game: 1) Gives the Zerg a fun way to scout (though really they already have plenty of scouting options). 2) Makes enemy players constantly fearful of all of their own units. Is THAT a Changeling?! What about THAT GUY!?
In live games it is pretty difficult to keep on top of the "Changeling Problem" if an enemy Zerg player is trying to sneak into your base. However when you do catch them it feels pretty good.
It's something we have been trying for a few weeks and we thought we would include it in the WWI build to see what people thought.
Dustin Browder said to me, other fansites and other press at BlizzCon 2007 that the game was about 50% done at the time, and he hinted at that the progress have accelerated over time, so it doesn't have to take another 4 years before launch - obviously!
------
An example is a new Protoss Pylon they have been toying with, a Dark Pylon, that doesn't give energy, but instead cloaks all the units around it. As it reveals Phase Cannons when they shoot, it is useful mainly to hide tech buildings. It wasn't added to the WWI build, and Karune did not know if it will appear in the game.
Zerg preview (Dont read,very misleading though, particulary about the Baneling, and the roach.) - by trollbone
look about the baneling :
The Baneling is a unit that I feel has been over hyped. It is fun to watch and interesting indeed, but beyond basic harassment, it falls short. The Baneling is too weak to send into battle, and although it does do massive damage, it is extremely hard to deliver effectively. A few marines can kill a baneling with out it getting close enough to kill them.
With that being said, the Baneling excels in gorilla attacks. Morping a Zergling into a Baneling takes very little time, and because of this you can use the amazing speed of Zergling to get into someone's base, and then do a mass morph into Banelings. This however, is really the only effective way to use Banelings that I have found.
He didnt even use burrow......
The writer is a noob, i think
Edit 2 :
Terran Preview (nothing new, poor insight) - by trollbone
The Jackal is the new assault buggy that was the replacement to the Firebat
I have read that Thor is a great way to kill colossi because Colossi is air and ground at the same time so Thor attack 2 times (i think its in the preview of Terran), my last post, but like nyvone said, in a competitive game Colossi cost a lot, and cant be incorporated in Builds orders at this moment
On July 04 2008 22:42 trollbone wrote: I have read that Thor is a great way to kill colossi because Colossi is air and ground at the same time so Thor attack 2 times (i think its in the preview of Terran), my last post, but like nyvone said, in a competitive game Colossi cost a lot, and cant be incorporated in Builds orders at this moment
Didn´t Karune explicticy state once that only the strongest out of 2 weapons would be used in such a case?
On July 04 2008 22:42 trollbone wrote: I have read that Thor is a great way to kill colossi because Colossi is air and ground at the same time so Thor attack 2 times (i think its in the preview of Terran), my last post, but like nyvone said, in a competitive game Colossi cost a lot, and cant be incorporated in Builds orders at this moment
Didn´t Karune explicticy state once that only the strongest out of 2 weapons would be used in such a case?
Dunno...i read that on a site
Gosh i need a good overview of Protoss, Zerg, Terran, this sites are so noobish.......
Yeah, you couldn't really do the Rock Paper Scissor match-up? (note : if there was a 4th race)
Dustin: It's not even just that, of the relationships in StarCraft; lot of them aren't even Rock Paper Scissors, which is one of the things that makes the game so exciting. One of the standard RTS paradigm is that we use the Rock Paper Scissors but a lot of the relationships, especially in the early tech tree of StarCraft, are positional based. It's not so much �whether I beat you� its �where do we fight�,.
Zerglings will crush Zealots in the open field. They'll just overrun them completely, and these are both the core units. Whereas the Zealots, at the choke, will just kill hundreds of Zerglings based on the Zerglings getting all trapped up behind. So in addition to where you fight there are also the questions of micro that are really interesting.
What we are really worried about are overlapping roles, it's a constant struggle for us, but if you go there and play it now you can find a couple:
Player: "What about these guys" Dustin: "Yes, I know!! They overlap, oh my god".
But we really try and make sure that if you got a specific unit on one side there is no equal unit on the other. Not just because it has cloak or not cloak but because fundamentally it plays in a different way from other units on the other tech trees and a fourth race would have been a lot more challenging. Maybe not even possible, frankly, to achieve this level quality with the these three races.
What is the problem with it? (note : the mothership)
Dustin: Well, by its size it doesn't look like a super unit from other RTS games. The problem here with super units is we want every unit to be a decision. There's no point in shipping a unit if the player says: "I have to build that, it's powerful, I should always build that. If I get to this tech level, I build it."
We don't have that in StarCraft II, the games meatier then that; you have to work for everything. So we don't like the "super units"... The Mothership visually seems to suggest that, but at the same time we don't want that to be part of the core gameplay experience so we're continually balancing the ship, we're continually looking for a new spell kit for this unit to make sure there are reasons to build it, really solid reasons, and really solid reasons not to build it.
Today the really solid reasons not to build it, and it's been this way for many months, is the Mothership can't really, cost for cost, defend itself effectively in the air. This means you can't have air superiority dumped on the Mothership. If you already have your superiority, go for it, the Mothership is a good addition, but like I say; "it's been a big pain." It's not helpful that it's located at the end of the tech tree against how fast StarCraft games can be and how brutal it can be. There is a great chance that you can die within the first three or four minutes. So even in our play test process we don't get to see this unit as often as we like:
Designer: "Did you get to play with the Mothership" Tester: "Well, no, we didn't, we topped out at the Immortals and Stalkers/Colossus" Designer: "Ok ok ok, play again, play real hard" Designer: "Did you get to play with the Mothership" Tester: "No, no, we didn't really get that high in the tech tree"
So once in a while it happens and then we'll get some data but it just makes it a lot more complicated. We get a lot more data obviously on play testing Stalkers, Zerglings, Marines and all these guys because you see them all the time.
On July 04 2008 22:42 trollbone wrote: I have read that Thor is a great way to kill colossi because Colossi is air and ground at the same time so Thor attack 2 times (i think its in the preview of Terran), my last post, but like nyvone said, in a competitive game Colossi cost a lot, and cant be incorporated in Builds orders at this moment
Didn´t Karune explicticy state once that only the strongest out of 2 weapons would be used in such a case?
Dunno...i read that on a site
Gosh i need a good overview of Protoss, Zerg, Terran, this sites are so noobish.......
Plz teamliquid, plz, plzzzzz
lol Im now sorting through my 63 pages A4 of collected notes I have and replies I posted after WWI on SC2 questions here on TL.net.
Haha yeah these notes and Q&A replies need some sorting out and cutting in amount cause theres some quite some double up haha but yeah it'll turn out pretty big I think lol. Hope I cut out most of it since alot of it is going to change anyway.
Said Itd be done yesterday but its taking some more time then I expected cause I wasnt expecting that I wrote this much crap about SC2 in the last 2 weeks haha.
Could someone who attended the WWI and played sc2 comment on:
-Battlecruisers; What's their plasma array like in actual gameplay? -Carriers: what happened with the interceptors/escorts thing? -Guardians: how powerful are they in real terms?
On July 08 2008 21:44 Vaul wrote: Could someone who attended the WWI and played sc2 comment on:
-Battlecruisers; What's their plasma array like in actual gameplay? -Carriers: what happened with the interceptors/escorts thing? -Guardians: how powerful are they in real terms?
Thanks.
Battlecruisers now have a AOE air to air missile barage, the plasma array got removed. But again lategame so noone prolly had a proper try with them. Carriers dunno! Guardians can't comment on, why? --->
The games never reached a proper endgame situation, guardians looked really nice and especially because of the spawn broodlings to draw fire it seems nice to have 4-5 of them in the back of your army shooting into the fray. Only problem seems that theres no reason to go spire except for guardians so you'll prolly stick with hydra ultra or the likes with lings/banelings or roaches in the mix.
Mutas namely suck huge donkey #@$% and the spire costs a whopping 200/300 plus a substantial amount to upgrade it to gspire. So you're investing so much time and resouces into getting a few support units you are probably a whole lot better off keeping that money invested in T1/T2 units that work while getting proper and more easily and directly accessible units at T3 when they become available.
Sorry it's not much I can tell you here but I hope it helps at least a bit, endgame wasnt really testable due to lowgas mapdesign, lack of knowledge of the game from most people, mostly scrubs that played and most of all the 20 minute timelimit per game (for most of the games).
Hope someone else can assist you with these questions in a more satisfying manner.
On July 08 2008 21:44 Vaul wrote: Could someone who attended the WWI and played sc2 comment on:
-Battlecruisers; What's their plasma array like in actual gameplay? -Carriers: what happened with the interceptors/escorts thing? -Guardians: how powerful are they in real terms?
Thanks.
Battlecruisers now have a AOE air to air missile barage, the plasma array got removed. But again lategame so noone prolly had a proper try with them. Carriers dunno! Guardians can't comment on, why? --->
The games never reached a proper endgame situation, guardians looked really nice and especially because of the spawn broodlings to draw fire it seems nice to have 4-5 of them in the back of your army shooting into the fray. Only problem seems that theres no reason to go spire except for guardians so you'll prolly stick with hydra ultra or the likes with lings/banelings or roaches in the mix.
Mutas namely suck huge donkey #@$% and the spire costs a whopping 200/300 plus a substantial amount to upgrade it to gspire. So you're investing so much time and resouces into getting a few support units you are probably a whole lot better off keeping that money invested in T1/T2 units that work while getting proper and more easily and directly accessible units at T3 when they become available.
Sorry it's not much I can tell you here but I hope it helps at least a bit, endgame wasnt really testable due to lowgas mapdesign, lack of knowledge of the game from most people, mostly scrubs that played and most of all the 20 minute timelimit per game (for most of the games).
Hope someone else can assist you with these questions in a more satisfying manner.
*
We are waiting for ure 63 pages. ^^
And also i have a question (for the admins) when will be a report on SC2 for WWI ?
Nyovne, I think this was asked before and you said overall you liked hydras. But I still can't get it out of my head that they're 100 gas units with 80hp! 100 gas, 80hp! Everyone is saying they're damage is nice and all but, 80hp!!! One colossus shot, one psi storm, could potentially kill like 8 hydras. You can micro, but that is hard and have a huge error margin, we see progamers losing tons of hydras to storms due to poor micro all the time in BW.
Was that never a (huge) issue? Like "nice I'll pwn him with these 8 hydras.. oh storm moove mooo--... awww there goes 800 gas"
On July 08 2008 23:30 VIB wrote: Nyovne, I think this was asked before and you said overall you liked hydras. But I still can't get it out of my head that they're 100 gas units with 80hp! 100 gas, 80hp! Everyone is saying they're damage is nice and all but, 80hp!!! One colossus shot, one psi storm, could potentially kill like 8 hydras. You can micro, but that is hard and have a huge error margin, we see progamers losing tons of hydras to storms due to poor micro all the time in BW.
Was that never a (huge) issue? Like "nice I'll pwn him with these 8 hydras.. oh storm moove mooo--... awww there goes 8000 gas"
You mean 800?
But yeah it is kinda off the scale and Ive been advocating 100/50 costs for hydras instead of 100/100. 25/25 increase per resource is already alot and let alone that they are 2psi instead of one which is the real beef in their increased cost. 80 hp is a bit of a joke but it fits zerg well and the way they play but the cost/supplycost should reflect that and that is not happening at the moment.
Zerg at the moment has no expendable units but for zerglings, roaches and banelings. For the rest its all *very* expensive. (Gas wise)
I haven't read through everything still, but I saw some comments on http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=18635&page=8 about Lurkers doing 10 + 30 to armor now... and so they aren't that great against infantry type units. I'm initially bothered by this, but perhaps someone can talk me down with some design logic. Why are they making the lurker weaker vs small units and better vs armored units?
Maybe it's the tileset. But the game seems a lot clearer and easier to follow in that video. Especially compared with those SC2 games that were broadcasted on the main stage.
On July 11 2008 05:09 trollbone wrote: I would like information on :
the preview by teamliquid of WWI (its been 2 weeks so....) Nyvone, when will u have time to put all ure informations in one single post/blog ?
They're waiting on me for the post t_t but I'm taking my sweet time because of my intership and my fucking around (literally) so I just can't be arsed into producing something proper when I get home. *I swear* I'll try to have it done before the end of the weekend =[.
On July 11 2008 05:59 BlackStar wrote: Maybe it's the tileset. But the game seems a lot clearer and easier to follow in that video. Especially compared with those SC2 games that were broadcasted on the main stage.
May also be the video quality of the stream.
SC2 is really easy to follow just like SC1 imho, I'm touching on that subject in me post to be as well. I really worried about it for a while because of the screenshots but if my 17+ hour playtime on WWI tought me something its that it feels like SC and that Screenshots are TERRIBLE to base *any* opinion on. Even on the visual valuation of units, you really have to see things moving to value them properly and the flashy shit isn't that bad at all.
And when it does, like Savior stomping some Danish noob with 12 Collossi lol, then you can't see whats happening and you don't need to know cause its all dead anyway :p. (like 12 carriers with interceptors swarming shit hehe)
Nyovne I was thinking about Colossi and how they are supposed to be boring to micro... in multiple numbers they reach 'critical mass' and melt everything but how they do as 1-3?
I mean I read they do 25 to all units caught in their AoE... but that means they need 8 shots to take down one Turret so Turrets (or Spores or Cannons) are so easy way to defend against them!
Do they need strong back up to raid anything? Should they have some switchable pint-point attack against stronger targets?... Or should Warp In be the way to go against bases?...
They outrange static defenses like Spinals/Bunkers for starters and second, they got alot of hp/shields so just walk in, shoot twice, lol at 30 dead workers and walk away.
;p.
So no, no way in hell that they need a buff hehe. And 4 Collossi with some meat in front pretty much melts anything t_t.
Does anyone know when Blizz will finally release the VODs of all games that were casted but not streamed? They promise that on the video page of the WWI site. But it hasn't happened yet.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/staff/Sigrun/WWI_Banner.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sclegacy.com/features/WWI08/artpanel/IMG_1866.jpg)
, its the replacement of the vulture....
