EPT
) and not "load," "enter" or "attack."And "move" implies "move to that unit/structure/place; don't do anything else I didn't tell you."
Terran Macro Mechanic: Drop Pods - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
maybenexttime
Poland5800 Posts
) and not "load," "enter" or "attack."And "move" implies "move to that unit/structure/place; don't do anything else I didn't tell you." | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 25 2009 04:56 maybenexttime wrote: A simple explanation could be that the default rally command is "move" (they should actually revert it back to "move" ) and not "load," "enter" or "attack."And "move" implies "move to that unit/structure/place; don't do anything else I didn't tell you." This is a topic for a whole other thread but what weve stumbled on here is something I like to call UI discrepancy. When a piece of the UI works in a manner different from every other similar UI piece. UI discrepancy in SC1 is what caused the MBS problem in the first place. The hotkeying of buildings functioned differently from the hotkeying of units. This sends conflicting messages to the player that multi-hotkeys are possible but you can't multi-hotkey buildings. | ||
|
SWPIGWANG
Canada482 Posts
By Archerofaiur Drop Pods would have five infantry slots and once full could be dropped anywhere Terran player has units. By FrozenArbiter As for not allowing already produced units to enter drop pods - why (aside from possible balance concerns)? If you want to send an already produced unit into a drop pod it's a process very similiar to macro - select unit, move screen to drop pod, click on drop pod, launch drop pod. This could easily break the mechanic as well as balance as there is no recharge to drop-pods. Players would hold a sizable number of marines in base and launch them all at once at important point on the map and hardly use them continuously except when the battle is pretty much already joined. (at which the player would normally do better microing marines as opposed to optimalizing reinforcement, since marines die so fast and is so dependent on micro...and reinforcements hardly come in time) Frankly, with such a hyper mobility option (free, anywhere on map, non-interceptible mobility!), it is questionable if terran players would even want much of a field marine army at all, or fight for the center at all as opposed hiding behind cliffs and seige, since staying in base gives them much greater mobility and dropping enemies to death. In other words, it would by used like the nydus network where most units are hold in central reserve and deployed on need in a short bust. I don't think nydus network is ever considered a "macro" mechanic by the community as it does not result in the steady interruption of the player as with "real" and "good" macro mechanics that makes you drop whatever you are doing every 30 seconds! It also does not effect production, mining or economy thus makes not a macro mechanic as well. ------- On the other hand, a simple rechargeable drop-pod would require screen changes simply for rally reasons. One would have to switch rally points from normal reinforcement from the ground to going into the pod if the pod recharges at a different speed than production cycles. (too much units means a lineup around the pod, too little units means idle pod) ---- random whine: However, rally point switches are "too easy" with MBS even if does require a screen change, and rally points are not time intensive as you can do it at anytime within a unit's production cycle and one can not further optimize it. In traditional production macro, a god-like player can play with zero queue while filling all production buildings which cuts the timing down to absolute zero time after production is done. (which can only mean a higher skill ceiling etc etc whine whine) The Nydus Worm See above on why this isn't a macro mechanic. It ain't got no minerals related to it! ---------- The issue isn't that players need an APM sink, but they need an APM sink that effects minerals, production, or supply. Otherwise "dodge the nuke" suggestion that is now closed due to all the flaming would be a fine mechanic. (and it is a mechanic that is actually in existing games and totally understood by the player base!) | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 25 2009 08:44 SWPIGWANG wrote: However, rally point switches are "too easy" with MBS even if does require a screen change, and rally points are not time intensive as you can do it at anytime within a unit's production cycle and one can not further optimize it. Well to use it to the most gosuness you want to have all your marines coming out as close together as possible. So youd want to que them but offset them by say 0.5 seconds. You will need this 0.5 sec to switch from rax to rax. Also the way we have it now you can only drop near player's units. Not anywhere on map. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
liquorice
United States170 Posts
On January 25 2009 08:44 SWPIGWANG wrote: This could easily break the mechanic as well as balance as there is no recharge to drop-pods. Players would hold a sizable number of marines in base and launch them all at once at important point on the map and hardly use them continuously except when the battle is pretty much already joined. (at which the player would normally do better microing marines as opposed to optimalizing reinforcement, since marines die so fast and is so dependent on micro...and reinforcements hardly come in time) Frankly, with such a hyper mobility option (free, anywhere on map, non-interceptible mobility!), it is questionable if terran players would even want much of a field marine army at all, or fight for the center at all as opposed hiding behind cliffs and seige, since staying in base gives them much greater mobility and dropping enemies to death. Actually, I think that adding this kind of instantaneous mobility might limit mobility overall. Since you can only drop-pod your rines once, someone can pretend to attack a lot somewhere (hallucination, lots of ovies, whatever) causing the terran player to drop all of his rines there, only to find that his other base is suddenly open to attack, with no reinforcements in drop pods. Strategic stuff. On another note, I'm not sure if this would be macro or micro. Yes, you're making units, but you're also deploying them strategically... hmm... | ||
|
Disregard
China10252 Posts
| ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 25 2009 04:56 maybenexttime wrote: A simple explanation could be that the default rally command is "move" (they should actually revert it back to "move" ) and not "load," "enter" or "attack."And "move" implies "move to that unit/structure/place; don't do anything else I didn't tell you." I am mostly for allowing the UI to follow the most logical choice. So I would have a barracks rallyd to a buniker automatically put the units in a bunker. I think that player actions should reflect player choices. Rarely does a player choose to bring marines to a bunker and then have them sit out in the cold. That being said I think I have a work around. What if you have like a launch pad and you call up the drop pod (maybe you have to purchase it). The drop pod comes up from below the launch pad and you can put units in it. Then you can drop the units in the drop pod. Now if you make it a purchase to get a drop pod then the player wont automatically get a new drop pod to replace the old one. This means that even if you rally your units to the launch pad they wont have a drop pod to go in to. This could require a player to come back, purchase the drop pod and insert units manually. Couple things I don't like about this. First, if were having the player come back to the base they should be doing meaning full action. I feel uncomfortable hinging the back-to-base action on whether UI conventions allow for marines to automaticallly enter drop pods they are rallyed to. I would be much more satisfied if we could find some strategic aspect involved in preparing drop pods that occurs in the base. Hmm Second, A min/gas cost seems too costly for this mechanic. There are better mobility options you could get. Which brings us to the next point. The 'load marines in base unload somewhere else in the map' overlaps with the medicvac's role. Now the drop pod is a one way trip which helps differentiate it from the medivac, warp-in and nydus. However I wish we could find something else to further set this mechanic apart. Thoughts? | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5800 Posts
Rallying on the Drop Pod would make units automatically enter it, but if you make the Drop Pod something you actually need to purchase then you'd naturally have to go back to base to set the new rally point onto the Drop Pod. It'd look like this: 1. You queue some units and a Drop Pod. 2. You get yourself busy with another task while units and the Pod are being trained/built. 3. Drop Pod's ready - you go back to base to load the already trained units and set the rally point onto the Pod. What do you think? Doesn't look atrificial at all to me. ^______^ | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
1) Order SCV (can be done with hotkeys remotely) 2) Wait production time, Micro army 3) Return to CC 4) Drag select SCV 5) Order to move to minerals Now lets look at this drop pod model 1) Order Drop Pod (can be done with hotkeys remotely) 2) Wait production time, Micro army 3) Return to CC 4) Drag select Units 5) Order to move to drop pod 6) Order Launch 7) Select destination Now obviously we arn't the developers. We have as much luck perdicting balance values as we do lottery numbers. But we can give estamated guesses. Price is Right style "How much would you pay for this beuatiful new Drop Pod?" I bid 25 min. What about you, Higher, Lower? Couple other points: -Makes heavy mech feel that much heavier. Terran players have to choose between a more mobile infantry army or the slower but heavy hitting mech army. -Strategic choice, Do I upgrade CC to launch center, surveilence station or planetary fortress? -Send one reaper behind enemy lines into mineral line, drop in 5 more reapers. -Combo with medivac for enhanced mobility and healing. -Combo with ghost to infiltrate enemy base and drop in 5 backup infantry. -Combo with Nighthawk mines to drop in a location your opponent thought you couldn't -Great for getting slow moving mauraders into the battle quickly rather then waiting for them to waddle across the map. -Drop 5 new SCV's at that new expansion. -Drop SCV's on that tank line for repairing. Can you think of any more? | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
IE why can't 1 tank enter (assuming 1 tank = 4 marines in size in a dropship, like in SC1)? The only worry I have is that if you don't have some kind of restriction on where you can land your drop pods - other than vision - then medivacs are going to become completely obsolete for anything but healing, no? | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
On January 26 2009 10:14 FrozenArbiter wrote: The only worry I have is that if you don't have some kind of restriction on where you can land your drop pods - other than vision - then medivacs are going to become completely obsolete for anything but healing, no? This could be said about the nydus worm and Overlord (or warp-in and prism) but here are some of the differences. I am all for finding more ways to differentiate it from the medicvac if people can think of some. Differences from medicvac -Can't heal -Only one way, think of it as a marine cannon -Can drop anywhere terran player has units/buildings (we changed if from just where terran has vision) -Only infantry -Costs minerals -Limited by # of launch centers -Limited by build time -Different Tier maybe So the main advantages the medivac has over the drop pod is its a two way transport, can heal, can carry mech, can carry more units, reusable, and can pick up units right as they are about to die (crucial for micro). Also note that there is a mineral, gas and time investment in upgrading your CC to a launch center. As far as why you can't drop metal, my personal opinoin is that metal should be slow. Terran have always been about sacrificing mobility for firepower. This is exemplified in siege mode, putting marines in bunker, Planetary Fortress can't float, etc... | ||
|
Augury
United States758 Posts
The rally point method just isn't 'fluid' enough for my taste. Edit: The Warp-In/Drop Pod/Nydus Worm idea seems really good, homing beacons for terran, pylons for toss, and creep for zerg. | ||
|
liquorice
United States170 Posts
| ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
one for players that can max out in no time other for players that like microing. + Show Spoiler + this is the main point of the macro problem, would macroing mean anything if anyplayer could max with the same speed/ease? like, Light cant max like ForGG, and etc the revolutions that starcraft had along the years had only a meaning cause of the differences that got born between players with their peculiar abilities in multitask, micro and macro what evolved the metagame to its actual stage. | ||
|
Kleander
United States334 Posts
On January 26 2009 13:20 Augury wrote: You could make it exactly like warp in, but have drop pods fall in range of a CC or something. Should allow vehicles to be dropped in as well, you could then ignore ships or have them use light speed or some BS to jump in. The rally point method just isn't 'fluid' enough for my taste. Edit: The Warp-In/Drop Pod/Nydus Worm idea seems really good, homing beacons for terran, pylons for toss, and creep for zerg. i thought blizzard was trying to avoid this? making the races exactly the same, that is. Terran isnt a mobile race, one of the best times to attack them is when they are moving, but they make up for it by having insane stationary abilities. in sc:bw protoss had recall, and zerg had nydus canal, terran had nothing (maybe if you count lifting your buildings... but thats nowhere near the potential danger of a recall, or playing whack-a-mole with a nydus canal). It fits with the races for terran to not have this kind of "pocket army" thing. I think the thread below is more in the right direction for a proper interruption macro mechanic http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=78501 | ||
|
Llamaz
Australia90 Posts
But I'm biased =/ I hate protoss warpin. It's so cheap and gay. Think of it as a cannon rush, except much gayer. Imagine a pesky probe hiding a pylon in the side of your base (ok its YOUR fault if he manages that), or a proxy pylon giving instant map control. If you get contained, he could set up a pylon so that units are streamed in instantly. Don't get me started on the floating pylon thing (forgot the name =/). I however have faith in blizzard. They are the developers, not us. They know how to make games, and they know what they're doing. I'm sure they will create an excellent, competitive, game. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
As for the mechanics, they could be implemented in any number of ways. Toggle button on barracks to load them or release them, putting them in at the shadow ops like it used to be, the command center being upgraded, as a unit created at a starport addon, seriously, any would be just fine. I don't even know why they removed them to begin with. Maybe blizzard just doesn't want to make the three races too similar with the whole warp-in/nydus/drop-pod functionality or maybe they are agreeing with me when I'm saying too much mobility is not a good thing. Edit: but if that's the problem then cut the damn medivac, I demand drop pods! | ||
|
Dariush
Romania330 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
Every race can have their own version of warpin without hurting uniqueness too much - just give them vastly different properties. You wouldn't call the Nydus Worm and Warp-In "too similiar", so there's no reason drop pods should be either. | ||
| ||
