On December 17 2008 20:06 bottomtier wrote: the perfect macro implementation would be more complicated than ordering your workers to work. it should involve tertiary resources, aoe spells, quaternary resources, fatigue, mana, mineral refineries, mineral refinery mechanics, arbitrary activation and deactivation of resources, stim packs, observers, speed upgrades, harvesting upgrades, harvesting speed upgrades, speed harvesting upgrades, speed packs, aoe harvesting, ranged mining, ranged mining upgrades, siege mode workers, and lasers.
works for micro. right?..
wraith harvesting!
I'm sorry guys, I don't really understand what this thread is asking, but I just had an interesting thought train.
Go with me on this, in a "real" (ahem) starcraft world, more than one SCV could fit into a refinery at a time. And they wouldn't take the gas to a command center, they would take it to where it was needed--be that the barracks or factory (or bunkers if marines figured out how to smoke it).
I know having double the gas harvesting rate would just fsck everything up, but what if scvs could bring gas to a factory (which could be built or floated right next to a refinery) and it could be used--but only in that factory? That could make for some really interesting build orders.
On December 25 2008 15:59 MiniRoman wrote: I liked my idea so I actually sent it in. This is what i emailed
"With this mechanic, when a player trains units with multiple buildings selected (MBS) there is a random chance for an accident to take place depending on the number of buildings used at a time (more buildings, more risk). A players units may either be: lost in psyonic energy while warping (for P), develop mutations (as Z), or injured during training/faulty construction (for T); unless, a distress call is answered. The distress call would function in the same way as Starcraft's under attack notifcation with a verbal warning, written message display and minimap ping. By selecting the specific facility that contains the ailing unit the player would press the "fix" button the endangered unit would come out full health; ignored the unit would spawn either damaged or possibly not at all (depending on the response time of the click). This could happen to any production building that initiated unit trainning through MBS at any time randomly throughout the units build cycle. Also once a unit is fixed it would be safe for the duration of its build. The idea being that distress calls are unpredictable and would force a reaction to focus a players attention (and screen) back to their base and would also give players an incentive to use MBS strategically as a tool instead oppossed to at all times. + Show Spoiler +
Expanded description: By increasing the call % based off of the number of production facilities used it would make players develope more strategic hotkey patterns in a game where the community is demanding for such a thing. It would also make players focus on individual buildings in the late game when MBS would be used the most and macro would be considered the "easiest". It forces players to tend to their soliders as they develope and adds speed to the macro side of the game."
What you guys think
Doesnt this bring luck into the game? Let's assume a slow player vs slow player game. Both players use MBS. Both of them focus on microing and forget to "fix" their units. One player gets 10 full health units, the other one gets only 7, because 3 got randomly killed. In addition, this makes you focus more on clicking your buildings - you need to click them two times to build the units (one click to build, 2nd click to fix) - I think that fast people will do it instead of setting the rally point 53453454 times, while the slower players will be even more fucked.
On December 26 2008 01:16 GearitUP wrote: Check this one out, tell me what you think...
When you tell a miner to gather gas, it goes into the building, gets gas returns it (you gain 8 gas) then it goes back to the building to mine more gas...
HERES THE TRICKY PART... you ready?
When the geyser is out of gas..... its depleted and you only get 4!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, are you serious? Are you sure this is gonna work? Did you do any playtesting? O_o
Is this some sort of troll post? In original starcraft you get 2 gas instead of 8 from a depleted geyser...
This is my first post here... I have to admit I'm not very good at the game but I feel like I understand it for the most part. I've also developed some games (though I admit I never worked on a strategy game before).
I have a proposal for this contest. As I understand it is all about new things a player can do in his base that requires a lot of clicking and benefits either his economy or unit production. Why not do per unit upgrades? Imagine you are a terran who has a few factory units defending one of his expansions where he has production buildings. He can order his units to go back into their production buildings, and then pick an upgrade for each one. Maybe more hit points, better weapons, or anything really, maybe a decrease in the collision circle size (allow ranged units to group closer and attack more effectively). The protoss could do the same thing (maybe they can upgrade from a range with warp gates or something). Zerg almost did this in brood war, the only difference is that they can do it anywhere and the units actually change into a completely different unit type. Maybe Zerg can only upgrade when on the creep, or something.
I think it would work. Choosing upgrades right would take time and skill, promote development of skills, and it would be very useful in gameplay. Imagine that you scout your opponent's attack and then quickly upgrade your units to deal with the threat effectively, saving one of your crucial expansions.
Or you could create a few elite units and drop them in the opponent's base, which might be more effective than a lot of weaker units, because they are easier to control and take up less space, making them more mobile.
On December 27 2008 05:12 admn67 wrote: This is my first post here... I have to admit I'm not very good at the game but I feel like I understand it for the most part. I've also developed some games (though I admit I never worked on a strategy game before).
I have a proposal for this contest. As I understand it is all about new things a player can do in his base that requires a lot of clicking and benefits either his economy or unit production. Why not do per unit upgrades? Imagine you are a terran who has a few factory units defending one of his expansions where he has production buildings. He can order his units to go back into their production buildings, and then pick an upgrade for each one. Maybe more hit points, better weapons, or anything really, maybe a decrease in the collision circle size (allow ranged units to group closer and attack more effectively). The protoss could do the same thing (maybe they can upgrade from a range with warp gates or something). Zerg almost did this in brood war, the only difference is that they can do it anywhere and the units actually change into a completely different unit type. Maybe Zerg can only upgrade when on the creep, or something.
I think it would work. Choosing upgrades right would take time and skill, promote development of skills, and it would be very useful in gameplay. Imagine that you scout your opponent's attack and then quickly upgrade your units to deal with the threat effectively, saving one of your crucial expansions.
Or you could create a few elite units and drop them in the opponent's base, which might be more effective than a lot of weaker units, because they are easier to control and take up less space, making them more mobile.
just like in dawn of war series ? this idea would work in warcraft 3 i think, but imagine upgrading more then 300 zerglings ling by ling :D
I was thinking it would be more like loading them into a dropship, and then ordering the dropship to perform a specific upgrade, except the dropship is like a hatchery or other production building.
Each geyser starts at 50% (subject to balance) of its maximal capacity. There are three mining modes. You can reach its full capacity by using mode III. If the geyser gets depleted before it reaches its full capacity it's depeleted (say you depleted it in mode I, it started with 50%, which is 2500 - you won't get the other 2500 back).
The Refinery (or Assimilator/Extractor) modes:
Mode I - the standard mode (all Refineries start with that mode on) - up to 3 workers can mine; each worker mines 5 gas units per turn.
Mode II (requires the player to switch to this mode) - allows up to 5 workers to mine (workers spend less time in the Refinery); each worker mines 7 (subject to balance) gas units per turn but the player only gains 5 (it depletes the geyser by 2 units more than you are credited with); useful for fast tech or hanbang strategies, etc.
Mode III (requires the player to switch to this mode) - does not allow any workers to mine; the Refinery reaches its full capacity over time (let's say it starts with 2500 gas and reaches 5000 mark over a minute or whatever).
DISCLAIMER: If the Refinery depletes before it's reached its full capacity, there's no going back (e.g. you've mined those 2500 gas units and never switched to mode III - you're not going to be able to mine those "remaining" 2500 gas units).
This way there'd be plenty more openings. You'd have to manage you gas timing/mode switching (including even 3rd or 4th gas expansions, not just mains.naturals) well in order to get the most out of your strategy/build order.
Additional info:
- as oposed to the Blizzard gas mechanic does not require each and every map to have two geysers in every main/natural - it allows for far more map designs than BW's resource system, imo
- some geysers could start at 0 initial gas count (forcing you to set them to mode III immediately after you take them) to make you plan your economic growth and take them ahead of time
- mode III allows for power-teching
I really like this idea. Did you e-mail it in to the contest?
Is this some sort of troll post? In original starcraft you get 2 gas instead of 8 from a depleted geyser...
It's called playing along with a joke :C
After all these years you can never be sure. I used to visit a diablo forum frequently and once some guy asked what are the red and blue bubbles at the bottom of the screen..
How do you think games will be decided with mbs? Smarter strategy ? ( i dont see anything else)..Now i'm starting to think that most of people here like sc not for its strategy part but only for the macro system .. I mean wheres the fun making 250 apm? If u have free energy to spend then go outside and make some sport but not in sc . I totally disagree with most of the sc communauty who dont want mbs..I often say to myself while doing 200 apm in front of a computer "i look so computer nerdy", i mean did you guy realized once that people who dont know sc and see some1 doing 250 apm for the first time are thinking "wow he's totally overfocused/ addicted to his video game". If there is mbs then what? Who said it will be funnier without mbs? the one who think macro / apm is fun? crap
Scaled MBS. The main problem with MBS is that the macro cost is reduced to almost zero no matter the number of units. Building 40 goons takes the same attention/time as building 1 goon! Solution: scaled MBS.
Your foe with 40 goons over your 1 already has the inherent numerical advantage, so should he have the added advantage of building 40 just as quick as building 1 (which is almost zero, btw)? This problem isn't as obvious as, say, reducing the mineral costs for 40 goons to equal 1 goon.
I posted aplenty about scaled MBS already, so I won't regurgitate. I remember someone constructively criticizing that scaled MBS won't affect game play at pro level. And I now introduce a cooldown aspect (instead of pressing TAB, for example) to regulate how fast it cycles to the next hotkeyed building. I made a video on YouTube to demonstrate. Further comments are on the page. (I had too much time on my hands during the holidays.)
I feel very strongly about this, and I want to have "OPERATION TEAMLIQUID" as a cheat code if Blizzard likes it.
I'm going to sleep now and I'll watch the video tomorrow, but you realize that currently you need to click once for every unit you build, so building 40 dragoons takes 40 times as many clicks as building one?
On December 17 2008 16:09 Conquest101 wrote: List of their suggested criteria:
* The ideal mechanic should be direct in its usage and provide beneficial gameplay.
* The ideal mechanic should have both advantages and disadvantages.
* The ideal mechanic should not have a drastically negative effect for any player, whether for you, your teammate or an opponent and his teammate.
* The ideal mechanic should not discourage micro.
* The ideal mechanic should not alter the MBS or auto-mining features. <----- BOO!
* The ideal mechanic should be flexible in its ability to be balanced.
* The ideal mechanic should not be forced upon a specific map or upon a certain type of player.
* The ideal mechanic's effect should not be random - its results must have definite results. * Preferably, the ideal mechanic will be dependent upon a player’s choices.
On January 04 2009 14:45 FrozenArbiter wrote: I'm going to sleep now and I'll watch the video tomorrow, but you realize that currently you need to click once for every unit you build, so building 40 dragoons takes 40 times as many clicks as building one?
Really? Is that how Blizzard currently has MBS macro set? Drats, my bad! But....even if so... it may still be worth watching the video, because to make 40 goons would require only 3 presses (5,5,D), which is newbie-friendly, but still manage to cost more macro time/attention.
And oh yeah, 5,D,D,D,D,D, etc. still applies, but with a cycle cooldown catch. (Pressing 5 once, not twice, doesn't force you to centre onto the hotkeyed buildings).
The point is the new mechanic should add something unique and interesting to the game and not dumb down a UI feature (unless I'm misinterpreting what you're proposing).
All these ideas are more confusing and unnecessary than the macro methods used in the original game. I see none of them as improvements but hindrances on the game. It's getting to the point where if these ideas were implemented the game would be worse as a result, not better.
It's getting away from a lot of people that macro in SC was a very simple, transparent physical barrier that players had to overcome if they wanted to be good. The constant addition of all these superficial macro ideas will just take away from the overall game and turn it into a horrible monster. I'm beginning to worry that if developers listened to what is being put forth, SC2 will play like popcap games crammed together with an rts underneath it somewhere.
idra since you are all over this thread what do you think of this idea + Show Spoiler +
Name: petzergling
tl;dr: Combine starcraft 1 mechanics with starcraft 2. Blizzard wanted to add automine & MBS to make gameplay easier, especially at a casual level. Provide a cost to MBS and automine that is negligible at a casual standpoint but can negated at a competitive level if players don't use the mechanics. Make the first mineral brought back by an automined worker not count. Most casual players don't even take the time to split their workers, so 8 minerals wouldn't make a big difference to them if it means they can do other things instead of click workers. Make units produced off of MBS take 25% longer to build or cost 10% more. This will allow anybody to have a large-scale battle of epic proportions while still rewarding players with high mechanical skill who take the time to select each factory individually.
Expanded explanation: Why is this a good idea?
-This promotes casual play, and even more, COMPETITIVE PLAY Adding MBS & Automine costs would be an amazing compromise and solution. It keeps casual players ability to use MBS and Automine and it still allows players to not use them and receive benefits for not using them. But heres the best part, casual players who use MBS and Automine are somewhat encouraged to not use them, even slightly, because it benefits them. Casual players get the choice to learn to play the game better and faster, and before they know it they are also playing at a competitive level where they can compete with the best players.
-Automine & MBS costs are completely simple, direct, and comprehendable. It is awesome for both the casual and competitive world. Casual players have a brand new shiny interface with the ability to automine and MBS, while returning competitive players still can bring their mechanics to the table and perfect their skills at starcraft 2.
-The costs have minimal negative effects. Casual players not only are only slightly harmed by them, but MBS and Automine allows them to play side by side with competitive players without it with a very small skill gap and no need for a change of game settings,
-A&MBS costs do not discourage micro, but rather they EMPHASIZE it. Players learn quickly in a battle they have the option to macro to gain a reinforcement advantage or just use the MBS feature and control their units normally. Players, casual and competitive alike, will be able to directly see the benefits and disadvantages of when micro should and shouldn't be used. This decision making, whether to macro or micro, is the backbone of the reason that plain MBS and Automine will hurt the game. This cost mechanic still leaves the decision there, but keeps the battle going by allowing players with lower mechanical skill to use MBS and control their units 100% while still knowing that reinforcements are coming.
-Automine & MBS costs are completely flexible to balance issues. Any issue regarding balancing it would just be determined by the % sacrificed by MBS and automine. Heck, there could even be a game setting where players can adjust it themselves! In competitive matches(kespa approved, tournaments) MBS and Automine would have high costs, where in friendly casual matches you could turn the costs down all the way to zero.
-A&MBS Costs are not random, map specific, player specific, or even game specific. All players are effected by it as much as they choose to be, and even though there are costs there are direct benefits to using it.
-A&MBS costs merge competitive gamers and casual gamers into a united gaming community. You would never think to see a casual player improving his mining and macro mechanics to get better at a game, but if there are tangible benefits to better macro then players will. You would never think to see a competitive player wanting A&MBS features in the game, but with the costs added even competitive gamers would use this to benefit their gaming experience. In the early and mid games they don't use the mechanic to gain every advantage possible, but in the late game players can use the MBS mechanics as well as automine to allow them to think more about strategy and less on brainless clicking on 16+ unit producers, leading ultimately for more fun and more play from all gamers.
EPT
