|
On August 23 2008 08:25 FrozenArbiter wrote:I'm re-opening this, not sure who closed it but if you want it re-closed then go ahead I suppose but I didn't find a reason anywhere and I think the thread has some potential. While the OPs specific examples are just a little too specific given how little we know of the game, I think the thought behind them is good. Spells that affect your economy (iirc didn't the Tauren Chieftain aura boost the movement speed of all units around it, including workers) isn't a bad idea at all, for instance. I dunno if this account is OakHill either but since I think it's a good first post, well, it doesn't matter much if it is  ?
This is a previously banned user, thats why it was closed. Also he posted a message on the bnet forums stating that he is trying to troll TL with this thread.
|
Vatican City State11 Posts
But you have no evidence that it's really him..? Identity on the internet is such a confusing thing.
|
There's this thing called an IP address.
|
I dont really like these ideas, especially for terran
- you have to upgrade detection for the nomad??? thats crazy! AND it costs energy???
- Auto-turrets cost energy too! it seems like most of the terran changes are made to weaken the race =O
- spider mines expire too, that ssucksssssssss, you cant lay mines at expos anymore to know whether they have expanded, bcause they will disappear regardless, or count on mines to know whether a flank is coming, or mine traps
- ~210 seconds for a simple energy upgrade? thats like the length of a weapon/armour upgrade
- new spider mines + reaper detonation charges = 2 shitty forms of SC1 spider mines
unless i read this wrong or understood it wrong it seems like zerg and toss got some good benefits while terran got some shitty 'auto-turret cost reduced' in exchange for some things i wanted to stay.
i dont like these changes/ideas
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On August 23 2008 13:09 Mastermind wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2008 08:25 FrozenArbiter wrote:I'm re-opening this, not sure who closed it but if you want it re-closed then go ahead I suppose but I didn't find a reason anywhere and I think the thread has some potential. While the OPs specific examples are just a little too specific given how little we know of the game, I think the thought behind them is good. Spells that affect your economy (iirc didn't the Tauren Chieftain aura boost the movement speed of all units around it, including workers) isn't a bad idea at all, for instance. I dunno if this account is OakHill either but since I think it's a good first post, well, it doesn't matter much if it is ? This is a previously banned user, thats why it was closed. Also he posted a message on the bnet forums stating that he is trying to troll TL with this thread.
There is 0 evidence that it's ACTUALLY OakHill + he wasn't banned (I can't unban people - hence whoever closed the thread obviously wasn't convinced it was OakHill).
Secondly, I don't really care if it's OakHill or not as long as the topic generates positive discussion.
On August 23 2008 16:31 EvoChamber wrote:
There's this thing called an IP address.
The IP address is not the same as the OakHill account. However, in the Bnet thread he claimed he used a proxy so who knows - I'm not tech savy at all so it's up to someone else on staff to deal with that.
As for those saying "I don't like these ideas" or what not, I think a more productive use for this thread would be to focus on the actual concept and not the specific ideas.
Something that this thread got me thinking about was how it would be interesting to have spells/abilities of units that could influence your economy - ie temporary boosts and what not.
Say like an alternative version of the gas mechanic; have the nomad merge with a refinery boosting its production until it runs out of mana - things like that. I think there are interesting possibilites.
Maybe they won't be exactly macro replacements but they could lead to more diversity in opening builds, or at least more different versions.
|
Vatican City State11 Posts
On August 23 2008 16:31 EvoChamber wrote:
There's this thing called an IP address.
1. If he really was so braindead that he would try using the same IP address, he wouldn't be able to log in because (I'm pretty sure this is how TL.net works) he was IP banned.
2. Proxy servers. Dynamic IP. Yeah.
|
google the ip address to see if it's a publicly known proxy
|
On August 24 2008 05:24 the_earth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2008 16:31 EvoChamber wrote:
There's this thing called an IP address. 1. If he really was so braindead that he would try using the same IP address, he wouldn't be able to log in because (I'm pretty sure this is how TL.net works) he was IP banned. 2. Proxy servers. Dynamic IP. Yeah.
Shame we can't ban mac addresses.
|
OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL
-hobo
p.s. Those ideas suck
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On August 24 2008 08:50 UmmTheHobo wrote:
OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL OAKHILL
-hobo
p.s. Those ideas suck
See you in a couple of days.
P.S Your post sucks D.S
To all: Unless you have something NEW to add to the OakHill situation (ie proof that OP is or is not, in fact, OakHill) then DO NOT POST.
If you want to post, make a post about the subject at hand - not neccessarily the specific ideas outlined in the OP but the concept behind them.
If you want drama I suggest you watch some daytime television instead.
|
Vatican City State11 Posts
I think the ideas are pretty cool. I can't recall ever seeing similar suggestions; it's a pretty new way to think about micro, it seems to me, and also appears to follow Blizzard's own design choices regarding macro (ala vespene gas).
|
The proposals are not bad mechanics on their own, but they all amount to making macro all about unit and building spell spamming and cooldown managing. There is already one spell spamming, caster heavy, special ability laden, cool down managing Blizzard RTS out, and I really don't want to see that in SC2. The game in its current version is already laden with special abilities as it is.
Blizzard's better off sticking with "warp in" type mechanics if they don't want to stick with the old SC set up than ,rather than vespene or any kind of special abilty spamming.
|
why is there such a horrible stigma attached to manual production? people are willing to be forced back to their base for artificially contrived actions like base management spells or drilling their geyser deeper, but not for giving orders to produce units?
|
|
|
Man...reading those posts from the Battle.net forums make me really angry. I should stop.
|
I Feel the same way Centic...
Btw,my feeling about those spells is that, starcraft 2 is fullfiled with it, units have too much spells , and micro and macro action in starcraft is about game mechanics use, with some glitchs being the point that differs starcraft from any other rts.
Blizzard should "glitch" some units in sc2, and let the ProGamers discover it,and force some more real macro instead of indirect actions - physical work-
and to you Moebius i got it:
+ Show Spoiler +The second issue is extremely important to us. Gas doesnt HAVE to be more interesting, but economy strategy and economy management must be an important part of the game. We have tried at least a dozen different gas systems in the last few months as we have explored what works and doesnt work inside StarCraft game play. We will continue to work on different ideas for a new gas mechanic until we find something that meets our needs or until we discover that all possible solutions are worse than what we currently have. What was shown at WWI was very much a work-in-progress, and while it continues to evolve it is valuable to be able to read forum posts from our fans about what they liked or didnt like in the last build they had a chance to play."
-Dustin Browder, Lead Designer of StarCraft II
|
On August 24 2008 23:18 IdrA wrote:
why is there such a horrible stigma attached to manual production? people are willing to be forced back to their base for artificially contrived actions like base management spells or drilling their geyser deeper, but not for giving orders to produce units?
This statement is so bloody true it makes me cringe.
It seems people are so against the idea of manual production, simply because it's been used in older games and therefore, by evolution or something, must be excluded in a modern game..?
This is a question that's been asked so many times about so many things in SC2 already, but:
Why fix something that isn't broken? Why change something that works really well as it is?
|
to cater to the people that enjoy gimmicks and do not have the constitution to develop mechanics.
|
|
|
Sweden33723 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
