|
On June 28 2009 07:55 cz wrote:
Oh jesus, creeps are so f'ing stupid. Especially if there is some bonus to them. War3 is basically walking around killing comps for 20 min before one fight. Makes the game, much, much more boring to watch.
You haven't watched any pro matchs I assume.
That's like Starcraft is all about teching to carriers and mass them. It's just as ignorant.
|
The use of the word "Creep" is becoming very confusing... Talking about Starcraft, it always reminds me of the zerg floor.
|
I think it would be a cool mechanic to be able to add neutral creeps/units on maps. Just not for ladder matches (at first anyways).
If you look at current metagame of BW now, they are constantly adding new terrain functions just to keep something fresh in the game so it doesn't stagnate.
First we got wide ramps and bridges, Minerals blocks/hybrid maps, then we got neutral buildings/units & spells on maps, then we got upward ramps and other kinds of terrain tricks, and even neutral CC for infested in ZvP.
Now imagine if SC editors allowed a cpu controlled AI in melee games. So you can throw down some units here and there. There is no doubt in my mind that pro map makers would experiment with this and we'd at least see a map trying out the concept in pro leagues.
Here is an example of the use of neutral creeps:
Have 3 bases in close proximity so that they would normally be very easy to take. The catch is that there is a 5-6 ghosts standing outside of the range of HQ building but guarding the minerals of that base, so that as soon as your workers come they get blasted. Since they do concussive damage; most early game units will be raped, so you must wait until mid game (goons, tanks, hydra, etc) to clear them.
This is just one example, imagine if there was a big neutral force in the center of a map which opened up a huge hole into the enemy base? It would add some crazy mind games into the game.
|
First of all, get your terminologies correct.
Neutral hostile units or creeps, as seen in wc3, will attack any players within a certain radius, or attack any player that attacked them.
Neutral friendly units or critters, as seen in wc3 as well as sc (eg. "pandabearguy"), will not actively attack any player nor defend itself.
My opinion is that critters in sc was a big failure, as it served absolutely no purpose except being annoying (unless you are talking about mind-controlling it, but that's just ridiculous). For wc3, however, critters play a major role because they serve as a source of corpses for the beginning of the game and can occasionally change the flow of the game in the first a few minutes.
The only reason to put in creeps in sc2 is to provide a mechanism that will allow a player to expand at a certain location only after he has accumulated certain amount of forces that would allow him to kill the creeps then expand. In that case I think they should be allowed as it gives new strategic depth into the game.
|
On June 27 2009 22:22 Superiorwolf wrote:
... You can already make neutral and/or hostile and/or friendly factions in the Starcraft editor right now. Haven't you played those things called UMS?
They probably won't be implemented in Blizzard normal maps, but user mapmakers probably will implement them after the game is out for a while.
i think he means not part of the tri-races
also yeah, i think they'll let u basically do w.e u want in terms of stuff like ums... kind of like WC3
|
On June 28 2009 11:44 illu wrote:
My opinion is that critters in sc was a big failure, as it served absolutely no purpose except being annoying (unless you are talking about mind-controlling it, but that's just ridiculous).
You're right, how silly to have critters act as map decorations. Such a failure. Tilesets failed completely too, had no effect besides changing the colours of things, srsly. And doodads? ROFL SUCH A JOKE AMIRITE
|
On June 28 2009 11:44 illu wrote:
First of all, get your terminologies correct.
Neutral hostile units or creeps, as seen in wc3, will attack any players within a certain radius, or attack any player that attacked them.
Neutral friendly units or critters, as seen in wc3 as well as sc (eg. "pandabearguy"), will not actively attack any player nor defend itself.
My opinion is that critters in sc was a big failure, as it served absolutely no purpose except being annoying (unless you are talking about mind-controlling it, but that's just ridiculous). For wc3, however, critters play a major role because they serve as a source of corpses for the beginning of the game and can occasionally change the flow of the game in the first a few minutes.
The only reason to put in creeps in sc2 is to provide a mechanism that will allow a player to expand at a certain location only after he has accumulated certain amount of forces that would allow him to kill the creeps then expand. In that case I think they should be allowed as it gives new strategic depth into the game.
Thank God! Someone agrees with me
|
On June 28 2009 10:29 CharlieMurphy wrote:
Here is an example of the use of neutral creeps:
Have 3 bases in close proximity so that they would normally be very easy to take. The catch is that there is a 5-6 ghosts standing outside of the range of HQ building but guarding the minerals of that base, so that as soon as your workers come they get blasted. Since they do concussive damage; most early game units will be raped, so you must wait until mid game (goons, tanks, hydra, etc) to clear them.
This is just one example, imagine if there was a big neutral force in the center of a map which opened up a huge hole into the enemy base? It would add some crazy mind games into the game.
It's called neutral buildings! And they're already being used exactly this way on current SC tourney maps.
Sorry for singling your post out; multiple people have suggested things like this.
|
Neutral buildings are much lamer than neutral units and make less sense too.
While a neutral building is nothing but a big delayer, creeps can create several interesting metagames, not saying I want it in every map, but theres no reason to argue that just because there were creeps in games you dont think are the best ones ever done that they cant be used as a kickass mechanic in sc2 on several maps doing the job of delaying stuff much better than a big pile of rock would.
not all ideas that came after BW are bad
|
On June 28 2009 07:55 thewalkindude wrote:
No thanks neutral creeps should stay out of Starcraft.
As long as neutral units don't give out experience or drop items, they're welcome to StarCraft II.
|
On June 28 2009 15:57 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2009 07:55 thewalkindude wrote:
No thanks neutral creeps should stay out of Starcraft. As long as neutral units don't give out experience or drop items, they're welcome to StarCraft II.
This is what I meant. Other guy who just quoted me has poor reading comprehension.
|
On June 27 2009 18:12 Suc wrote:
I think it's very likely that these things will be in the campaign at some point, not like buying units from a shop or anything, probably you rescue it and gain control of it.
It is very likely that you can build them in the campaign, that you can buy them from shops, summon them and also rescue them. Blizzard have gone more and more away from the standard skirmish missions with every game. In the wc3 expansions they even let you play two totally custom races in the campaign, dranei and naga.
|
On June 27 2009 21:10 FrozenArbiter wrote:
There's really nothing wrong with the option to have neutral units in a map btw, you don't have to use it, up to the map maker really. Armies of Exigo had a few maps with neutral units blocking expos / merc camps (majority of maps were just like regular BW maps, but nothing wrong with variety).
I concur, I think that a hostile turret or some such blocking you from expanding in the yellow minerals is way cooler than some rocks. I works fluff wise and isn't like wc3 at all, in wc3 the neutral hostiles are a resource, they give you gold and beef up your strongest units. If they ever are present in multiplayer maps, they will be purely a hindrance.
I am however opposed to purchasable mercenaries, at least not in a traditional sense. SC is a game that depends on having different races with different advantages, including units that anyone can get would lessen this, taking something vital away from the game and making balance more difficult.
|
Neutral hostiles for blocking expansions could be particularly useful as opposed to rocks in stopping Terrans from expanding too soon on island maps. Since a CC can only carry SCVs, (and only 5 at a time) you could probably choose an NH (Neutral Hostile) that would successfully stop 5 SCVs from killing it but would be easy work of a Medivac of 7 Marines, or Warp Prism w Stalkers, or Overlord/Nydus drop of Hydralisks.
I do agree that mercenaries seems a bit wrong for Multiplayer (definitely be good idea in Single Player though, Neutrals should be more of a Terrain element.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
