|
I like your idea, visually speaking, especially the tentacles.
Althought, and besides the gfx, I don't see an improvment.
Zerg :
What you suggest is simply no auto-mining, ok.
But then, if the tentacles are attached to hatcheries, you would lose also mobility and workers transfer, which is a part of micro / macro.
If they are invincible, you'd lose all the actions required to save your workers in case of an attack, which therefore tends to lower macro / micro : the main and only goal would be to destroy the hatch.
What then ? I guess you would lose all the tentacles, since they are attached.
If you had to pay for each of them, it could appear to be a very strong economic damage. Unless may be each tentacle would increase hatchery HP by, say, 50 hp ? Or may be tentacles could go into a defensive stance (now that would be graphically appealing : imagine the 50 tentacles Hive dance of death, impaling marines and zealots left and right)
I can't see tentacles popping like larvae, and costing no money, that would take away so much of the player interractivity. (which would be, in this case, only to assign)
I must say i like this idea, overall.
Protoss :
I don't like this idea.
It would be like Night elf mining, sort of. You plant your mine, which is protected but destroyable since it is a building, and then you do... nothing. (since no workers are required to be placed inside to harvest, in your pattern).
No mobility (no scouting, no probe escape, no probe transfer), no base caring, no over mining... I can see only disadvantages in this scheme.
May be you could still scout with a probe since you wanted to keep one to make those said building, but then the probe's role would be.... ? pure builder ? Therefore only need one ?
This sound like a devolution to me. (although, and again, i liked your idea behind this, graphically speaking. Storms surrounding the nexus would be awesome.)
Terran :
Nothing to add.
Edit :
I had another thought, while rereading the OP, where you mentionned Innovation and "having fun building the war machine".
I think that "having fun" is actually coming from innovation itslef, therefore i would agree that you're purposed changes would be a source of fun, because they are very innovative, for the tentacle part at least.
But after the element of surprise, i am not sure that those tentacles would lead to the same amount of fun we already have with drones, mainly for the loss of mobility, and so the loss of control it'll imply.
May be building your base in SC1 is not funny anymore, (arguable), but I'd say this mainly comes from the fact that SC1 is a 10 year old kid software. We know the deal.
Imo, what keeps up the fun after all those years -when innovation is gone-, is also the quality of animation, sounds and effects produced by the game. (I am not saying extreme SLI quadricore gfx, I'am saying good animations, well rounded sounds and fair graphics). SC1 had the 3 of those, and this is why, even though we've seen the same screens over and over again, it stills remains enjoyable, trippy and rewarding.
It just feels good when a marine explodes or zerglings pop.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On September 11 2008 18:24 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2008 14:00 Archerofaiur wrote:On September 11 2008 13:50 Superiorwolf wrote:Suppy Mechanics Thread, you say??? Hmm....  Great first post man, I just read through it and although there's some points I can say I can disagree on, I really enjoyed the read and the effort you put into this post. I'll give my opinions tomorow when I have time. In the meantime, I'd like to say those were great first posts, and welcome to TL.net! + Show Spoiler +You must be Oakhill. I don't know the story behind it but bringing up topics like these will spark nice discussions so thanks I am not Oakhill That's exactly what Oakhill would say ^^ Also, your suggestions are all too exaggerated (as in completely change the metagame) for a game that none of us know much about. How can you balance something you do not know? You're shooting in the dark, that's pretty much a 100% worthless waste of time. Why can't you just wait for beta, see exactly what the weak points of the game are. And then make exaggerated suggestions that at least are based on experience rather than pure speculation? Really, the game is not even fucking beta... chill out, calm down and wait until you actually play it and have any clue of what's going on. For the record oakhill still browses with his banned acc
|
Diversifying Racial Resouce gathering is a nice idea but won´t work like that simply because the peonswarm needs to stay as vulnerable spot of each base. I mean what is the purpose of Reapers if Protoss mine via "buildings"?
There are possibilities in the Resource aspect to become more involving. We could take ideas from other Games - Blizzard is known for that.
Possibilities include: More resource applications, forr example as tool in diplomacy (won´t happen)
Tradable with a 3rd Faction, maybe over a neutral Trading port? (kinda exists as "gas mechanic")
More complex resource system - how about adding a refinery building, instead of delivering to the CC directly your peons first deliver to the refinery where it is "processed" and THEN to the CC.
This could increase value but be more vulnerable and take longer to set up/involve more peons.
Taxes and Interest. Doesn´t have to work like in WC3 but it´s a possibility to increase economical depht/options.
|
Nice thesis... only four problems
What main questions do you want answered with the thesis?
What theory or sources did you use to validate your thesis?
Where is the empirical study?
What is the reliability and validity of your results that you got when you compared the thesis with your theory and empirical study, are there any reasons as to why your conclusion could be false, if so what were they?
|
i really dislike all of the new ideas, workers are essential for base defense, all-ins and micro tricks like (ramp) blocking. I like having a work force that can fight back, i love those moments when the peons run out to surround and kill the goons, and those decisions are some of the hardest and most important to make. Most importantly workers are just about the only reason for harassment, which is just about the only reason for a whole truck load of fast DT/reaver/muta/vulture-speed strats and counter strats. These are all parts of the game i do not wish to disappear.
Also i don't see how the protoss version adds macro, you just say build here the forget, and what's to stop a single probe running round the map and building on every min patch? i guess you could put in something like it takes X seconds per square of distance from a nexus but then you may as well use a probe.
|
The many workers approach of Starcraft's resource mining is a big part of the game. As mentioned before, removing harassment is a big big big part of Starcraft. Also, maynarding is one of the strategic economic decisions that is fun to make even with MBS - exactly the sort of mechanic we want to keep.
I also have a further compliant about the Zerg. The decision whether to make units or workers is uniquely Zerg, and this eliminates that aspect, and yet another good strategic economic elemnts compatible with MBS / Automine.
Your concpet and statement of intent are perfect, but its back to the drawing board on concrete ideas, I'm afraid.
|
why would Blizzard go out of their way to remove as much base management, and then implement a new system that is essentially the same thing but tries to pretend it's not?
If Blizzard wanted people to spend more time on macro/base-management in SC2, they would have implemented such a system.
|
Mora
"We have been working hard for the last several months on ways to improve the gas mechanic in StarCraft 2. There are a couple of goals for this design change:
1) Gas doesnt always involve a lot of choice or strategy in SC2. You tend to just try to collect as much as you can as fast as you can and it involves only a few of your workers. Could a new way of collecting gas be another way to add more strategy to the game?
2) Base building and economy management isnt as strategically deep as we want it to be in StarCraft 2. StarCraft has always been a game where economy plays a large role in your strategy. Can we improve what we have?
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
for you
|
On September 12 2008 00:21 Integra wrote:
Nice thesis... only four problems
What main questions do you want answered with the thesis?
What theory or sources did you use to validate your thesis?
Where is the empirical study?
What is the reliability and validity of your results that you got when you compared the thesis with your theory and empirical study, are there any reasons as to why your conclusion could be false, if so what were they?
What main questions do you want answered with the thesis?
How can macro be improved for Starcraft 2?
What theory or sources did you use to validate your thesis?
A series of essays to be put forth detailing game design approaches and possible mechanics.
Where is the empirical study?
Warcraft 3 and Starcraft editor maps that will be created to model the mechanics with the most potential.
What is the reliability and validity of your results that you got when you compared the thesis with your theory and empirical study, are there any reasons as to why your conclusion could be false, if so what were they?
Trust me, I will have allot to say on this once we have completed the first three stages.
|
yeah, and the terrans wont have to macro?
|
On September 12 2008 08:05 Ki_Do wrote:
yeah, and the terrans wont have to macro?
Did I say that?
The terran players will have whatever tools they need to play starcraft in a fun and competitive manner. Keep in mind that this is only my essay on mining mechanics. A second essay on supply mechanics is also avalible. I am currently working on essays detailing ancillary buildings, production builidngs, base defence, UI and the ever elusive gas mechanic. Even the ideas I have already proposed are far from finalized. I tend to follow the same design timeline blizzard does. Conceive, iterate, iterate, iterate, discard and start over cause that idea sucked anyway. It would be nice if I could conjure up an idea so great that it was ready to go into starcraft 2 without any tweaking, balancing, beta etc. Sadly I cannot. Which brings up the reason I would post this idea on forums in the first place. I am looking for constructive criticism and suggestions from you guys. Feel free to give your impressions, percieved problems, and recomendations. I promise that I will take all of them into account.
|
IMO this just makes the game that much more easier, and less entertaining. With automining and MBS, people can easily become good with -100 APM
|
"By introducing entirely novel systems you can once again require the player to perform a vital task (manage an army and a home base) without having them view it as a chore, burden or relic of an archaic system."
^----- I stopped reading after that. By introducing a retarded thing like that it would just elminate automining because they no longer automatically mine =\. They chose to not have it for a reason, not so they could add something stupid that mimics manual mning.
|
On September 12 2008 11:42 OmgIRok wrote:
IMO this just makes the game that much more easier, and less entertaining. With automining and MBS, people can easily become good with -100 APM
Being good is always relative, that is why the metagame is so important. We won´t be able to change anything if we always look at it as it it was added to SC:BW. Easy in Multiplayer is a weird concept for me, I always think that means a unexperienced opponent while others propably mean a effective User interface.
|
On September 12 2008 06:06 Ki_Do wrote:Mora Show nested quote +"We have been working hard for the last several months on ways to improve the gas mechanic in StarCraft 2. There are a couple of goals for this design change:
1) Gas doesnt always involve a lot of choice or strategy in SC2. You tend to just try to collect as much as you can as fast as you can and it involves only a few of your workers. Could a new way of collecting gas be another way to add more strategy to the game?
2) Base building and economy management isnt as strategically deep as we want it to be in StarCraft 2. StarCraft has always been a game where economy plays a large role in your strategy. Can we improve what we have?
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 for you
What does that have anything to do with macro or base management?
An economic syetm requiring thought/strategy != spending time managing your base.
Of course Blizzard wants their economy system to be deep. That's part of creating an engaging and long-living strategy game. Do you expect them to have a different goal?
I was going to re-itreate what i had said, but i think i nailed my point on the head the first time, so i will just repeat myself: why would Blizzard go out of their way to reduce base management, just to implement a new system that essentially requires the same thing but tries to pretend it doesn't?
MBS does not reduce the amount of strategy involved with Macro. Nor does auto-mining. It just allows for players to accomplish those strategies with more speed and better efficiency. This is not by mistake, it is by intent. They would not sabotage those intentions by implementing a system such as the original poster suggests, as it would accomplish exactly that.
If Blizzard changed their intentions regarding how much time a player spends managing his base/macro, why wouldn't they simply remove MBS and automining? Why go to great lengths to create a new system (the Thesis) so late in their developement stage?
|
On September 12 2008 11:42 OmgIRok wrote:
IMO this just makes the game that much more easier, and less entertaining. With automining and MBS, people can easily become good with -100 APM
Do you think Blizzard wants players want to be able to be good at less than 100APM?
Or let's be more specific: What APM is the threshold that Blizzard desires their 'upper eschelon' of players to play at?
|
Ultimately, it might not be a totally bad thing to have a race that favors heavy micro, one that favors heavy macro and one that falls somewhere in between (fits the racial trichotomy).
I disagree here, It probably takes more time to master micro than macro because micro has to do with a lot of unit types whereas macro has to do with hotekeys, buildings, and peons.
Meaning that someone who has played less using say zerg would have and equal chance of beating someone who played more as a terran (50 games out of 100) given that they learned at the same pace in starcraft 1.
edit: Although I don't like copying people, you have to look at some other cool games like age of empires 2. The game was relatively fast paced, though not as much as starcraft, and you could hotkey buildings and train fast. Warcraft 3 had too few units and age of empires 3 is for noobs, but Age 2 was pretty good and had waypoints. It did have four static resources though so meh...
To make the game have more macro... well there are a few ways, just do anything that make the player click more to do the same thing in a longer amount of time. Decrease the unit selection for protoss and terran and halve it for zerg?
This isn't a college thesis is it? Because that would be one sick major :study of starcraft 2 design.
edit 2: make units move in formation. Those things are so annoying that they force good players to
micro their units, lol probe formation that steps over itself for 30 seconds before maynarding unless you doubleclick the mineral chunk and stack them beforehand. It won't work, but it'd be funny to see.
|
If Blizzard changed their intentions regarding how much time a player spends managing his base/macro, why wouldn't they simply remove MBS and automining? Why go to great lengths to create a new system (the Thesis) so late in their developement stage?
its definitely an option for them, said Dustin Browder about finding a way to add macro again to the game and recreate the macro more vs micro more styles of gameplay, all i know is that actual sc2 = failure.
|
On September 13 2008 10:18 Mora wrote:
If Blizzard changed their intentions regarding how much time a player spends managing his base/macro, why wouldn't they simply remove MBS and automining? Why go to great lengths to create a new system (the Thesis) so late in their developement stage?
Does pre-alpha count as late in the development stage these days?
|
On September 13 2008 13:57 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2008 10:18 Mora wrote:
If Blizzard changed their intentions regarding how much time a player spends managing his base/macro, why wouldn't they simply remove MBS and automining? Why go to great lengths to create a new system (the Thesis) so late in their developement stage? Does pre-alpha count as late in the development stage these days?
Comments such as that are irrelevant. If parts of the game were whole heartedly rejected in Beta, Blizzard would rework it even if it was that late in development. Blizzard's a corporation, but their not EA just yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
