|
On December 19 2008 10:18 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2008 03:58 InRaged wrote:On December 19 2008 02:34 IdrA wrote:On December 19 2008 01:06 InRaged wrote:On December 18 2008 17:37 FrozenArbiter wrote: @IdrA, Kinda forgot toss has flying pylons =p That's not a problem, isn't it? Just add ~5 sec delay when it turns into "Pylon" (turning back into Warp Prism could be instant) and make it lose shields in this mode or take double damage from enemy attacks. you mean to make warp in a viable alternative to macro? if so that wouldnt really change anything, obviously make it a bit slower/more dangerous, but you still dont have to move your screen to do it. you're focusing on your army the entire time, you just have to deploy the prism 5 seconds before your warpgate cooldown finishes. I mean rebalancing the Prism so it's risky to use this way. It should be suitable for creating back doors, but not for carrying around your army as a flying Pylon. As I see it, Prism is just like shuttle - it's fast but fragile and kind of hard to mass, so each one of them counts. If it's weak as shuttle than double damage from any unit would be devastating. The delay is here not just to slow down your army, but to increase the time the Prism is exposed to the attack. With the delay you obviously can't just fly in, warp stuff and flee from the battlefield in couple seconds - you have to leave the Prism deploying. And now, what if it was extra vulnerable in this exposed Pylon state? This way it's very easy to lose it completely fruitlessly, and to bid farewell with it to all the units that were in state of Warping in. Of course I'm assuming that units don't Warp in instantly and there's at least 2 seconds delay, right? Edit: well, in the end, we can just give the Prism an energy and make deploying cost 75 mana if nothing else works. That one will work for sure. doesnt exactly seem relevant to the thread theres not really any reason to think that the prism is even imbalanced at this point. its certainly far less powerful than nydus worms. and its not like we can expect terran to be as good as the other races anyway. More relevant than WC3. And that's not about imbalance. That's about defining Prism role. It's clearly, at least for my likes, that it isn't supposed to be carried right in the midst of the battle to reinforce your army. And if you can't use it this way, than you will have to look away from your army when you're creating units. That's why I've replied to FA in the first place. Prism can be balanced so you have to look away from your army whether you use it or not.
and units do warp in essentially instantly. ~2 seconds delay too may seem essentially instant when in reality it's pretty big. And if it's really instant than it should be changed. It's not only makes it risky to create units near enemy. If there's delay, you can't just spam units, add them to the group and send somewhere especially if you have stuff to micro in the center of the map. With delay you'll be forced to comeback for them once again.
actually come to think of it your solution wouldnt even fix your problem. making it weaker or more vulnerable means it would be more likely used just to reinforce your army quickly, since youd have your army right there to defend it while its vulnerable. This 'look away from the army' aspect of the macro makes sense only when there's actual battle going on that you have to micro, otherwise it doesn't matter. And if Prism is so vulnerable you won't have it near your units when there's battle going on. Especially if it costs mana to deploy.
And talking about posts relevant to this thread, I at least somehow contributed to the contest. Have you posted here anything besides complaints?
|
On December 17 2008 23:17 IdrA wrote: have they considered allowing mbs, but not allowing hotkeying more than 1 building? that would be acceptable to me, the big problem is not that you dont have to click enough, its that you dont have to look back at your base (away from your army) to make units, but newbies tend to bitch that its tedious and unecessary to go through and click 20 times to make 10 goons.
its not really pertinent to this contest, but would do other people think that would be an acceptable solution to mbs? This is a great solution imo.
|
An option to specialize production buildings so they build one particular unit more efficiently, say you click a factory and tell it to specialize in jackals, after an initial cost for the factory specializing, all jackals produced from that factory become cheaper to make for a certain amount of time.
|
On December 17 2008 15:42 IdrA wrote: oh hell yes im gonna win easy
how about this: you make it so that whenever someone wants to make a unit, they have to click on one of their production buildings and tell it to produce that unit.
genius? that sounds lame. what if you don't have a microphone?
|
On December 18 2008 01:26 Essence wrote: I haven't read all the discussions in each threads, and I am not a huge SC macro strategic mastermind, but I guess I will give it a shot and post a vague idea here. Hopefully it (or something similar has not been posted yet).
the basic idea would be the following: The gas refinaries would have different levels of quality. When you finish constructing your refinary the first time you build it, It can allow to mine let's say 6 gas at the time. After a certain amount of time or gas mined (or potentially both) the refinary drops in quality, allowing for the return of 4 gas / worker (or whatever the number that makes it balanced). After a while it could further drop to 2. Also, there could be another level above the starter, let's say 8 gas / worker. Now if you want to repair the refinary or upgrade it, you need to use workers outside the building to fix it, more workers can upgrade it faster, but it would be limited (like 1-4 workers can upgrade a refinary at the time).
This system is as flexible in tweaking as it gets, the developers can choose the different quality levels of the refinaries, the time (and potentially the resources, it could cost minerals to repair the refinary, but not neccessarily) it takes to upgrade a building, the time it takes for each race to increase the quality of the refinary etc.
Depending on the timings chosen, this could require the player different amount of multitasking, the faster the building degrades the more attention / APM it requires to maintain the gas mining.
This could also add trillions of strategical choices in build orders, especially early game; the different amount of workers sacrificed in maintaining the geysers would be sacrificed from mining minerals or doing other tasks. Since each race favours a different ratio of workers to army and mineral miners to gas miners (zergs come to mind mostly), it could be balanced for each race as Blizzard sees fit.
If they wanted the players to spare from the insane amount of multitasking lategame with multiply mining gases, they could add a late tech upgrade for refinaries that would to a certain degree maintain effective gas mining. They could still make it imperfect to reward very high APM multitasking monsters, or in case some late game scenario arises where the player is highly dependant on gas on fewer bases and would prefer manually ensure that the gas flow is perfect.
The idea is this in a nutshell. I sincerely hope it hasn't been posted by someone else (I am not trying to rip off anybody of his/her idea) and also that it doesn't sound like total bullshit. I believe it could use some tweaking, but it seems to fit into all the criterias listed above.
EDIT: Naturally, this woldn't effect the total amount of gas mineable from a geyser, it could still dry up after X thousand, it would simply fluently effect the speed of the gas mining second idea so far, it sounds good. a little bit more normal than the example scl gave and obviously better than the first idea which violated one of the requirements (not be repetitive)
|
On December 18 2008 07:24 closed wrote: "REAL LIFE RESOURCES DISTRIBUTION" Minerals and gas should be kept in "storage points" that could connect with the production spots nearby (e.g. creep distance) in order to provide them with resources used to build. Every town hall would have its own mineral counter and range, in which it would provide them to other facilities (like pylons). Long connections should be either impossible to be made, or consist of “pipes” that would be easy to break (e.g. by muta harass); thus the players should be given the option to transport their resources to their factories (or perhaps “other/old” storage points) by means of peons. Alternatively, they should be given the option to send the resources instantly at a price (e.g. pay a “2” mineral transport fee for each 10 minerals transferred). Of course such things should be also overridden by giving the players the option to move their production facilities (either by floating/teleporting or even removing/selling them).
Continued from the beginning: Such a system of resource distribution could lead to certain tactical problems - e.g. a new expansion would need its own production facilities, otherwise the opponents could block the path to it, in order to cut off the player from his resources. Transportation could be solved in few ways: – being able to move minerals by means of the peons (e.g. every peon would grab 100 minerals in order to transport them) – of course the peons could die during the process -players should be able to create “visible pipes” (that could easily be destroyed) -players should be given the option to transport the resources instantly by means of some other way, that would cost them a “transport fee” (e.g. underground tunnels, teleports) – for each 10minerals moved this way, they would only get 6 -Perhaps the players should also be given the option to sell their production facilities in order to rebuild them somewhere else (but not the “quick sell” option from CC, to discourage selling damaged buildings). -Terrans could also fly their buildings; perhaps Protoss should be able to teleport them.
The only drawback of this idea are island maps - one would have to build a dropship to move the minerals (and dropships are fragile). Perhaps players would have to decide to gamble by using dropships, or stay with the reliable “magic transportation techniqes". This would unfortunately mean, that island expansions (that are already hard to defend), would bring lower revenues – but perhaps the mapmakers could balanced it out by placing “upgraded mineral formations” (e.g. special crystals) that would provide additional resources when mined (e.g. 12 minerals instead of 8). This way, islands would not be harmed by the “transport tax”.
lol this idea isn't just fun, it's funny!
|
On December 18 2008 10:27 Kong John wrote: I dont get why doing a relaxed form of MBS isent enough. I understand that normal people arent going to like an old system.
Think about it, if blizzard released SC2 with the same UI as SC:BW, the rewiers would pull their balls off.
MBS is a good thing for newer and casual players but makes things quite lame for competitve players. Now i dont know any casual gamers that use hotkeys often, they just want to play layed back. On the other hand Competetive players wont a difficult game that is intense and gives them a great rewarding feeling of acomplisment once they have defeated an opponent.
I think MBS should purely consist in the game a the ability to double click a warp gate (or whatever) in order to select all gates in the vicinity. Everything else should be the same as in BW, one z key tap only makes one zealot and not a hole bunch from all the gates you made. Also you shouldnt be able to use hotkeys to mark several buildings, as this would mostly be used by competetive gamers anyway.
I realise that this is pretty mmuch what Idra said, but i still think its the perfekt solution to the problem.
P.S. Screw automining, that isent much of an issue. nobody in their right mind is going to bother with hotkeying a crapload of buildings individually. it's a waste of hotkeys.
|
On December 19 2008 04:59 SlickR12345 wrote: Here is a gas macro mechanic: First of all, the current stupid gas mechanic needs to go in order for this to be any good, gayzers should be only 1 per mineral line just as in original starcraft. Now add yellow gayzers, in addition to normal gas OR make all gayzers work like this(depending what people like more): Yellow gas is built normally, has total of 5000 gas in it, but it gives 12 gas per trip. The catch is that you need to manually set the gas flow. There would be 3 options: min, med and max. (Numbers prone to balance changes)Setting it to max gives 12 gas per trip, but takes away 15 gas from the gayzer, seting it at med gives 10 gas per trip but takes 12 from the gayzer and setting it to min gives 8 gas per trip but takes 6 from the gayzer.
So you need to balance it fairly regulary depending on your strategy and tactics. So as you can see this mechanic also has meaningful actions that relate to strategy and tactics.
The different settings will have a visual cue in the form of red circles at the bottom of the gas, 1 red circle means its set to min, 2 red circles means its set to med and 3 red circles means it is set to max.
Post your feedback! this idea is quite good.
|
On December 19 2008 07:40 CharlieMurphy wrote: I was just using the MBS in wc3 yesterday and had 2 crypts selected and building ghouls and gargs. Then I go back to my base and check and its only 1 crypt with liek 4 units queued. MBS sucks for a number of reasons, and this is just one. you probably forgot to build your ziggurats/pylons or something like that.
|
On December 19 2008 04:59 SlickR12345 wrote: Here is a gas macro mechanic: First of all, the current stupid gas mechanic needs to go in order for this to be any good, gayzers should be only 1 per mineral line just as in original starcraft. Now add yellow gayzers, in addition to normal gas OR make all gayzers work like this(depending what people like more): Yellow gas is built normally, has total of 5000 gas in it, but it gives 12 gas per trip. The catch is that you need to manually set the gas flow. There would be 3 options: min, med and max. (Numbers prone to balance changes)Setting it to max gives 12 gas per trip, but takes away 15 gas from the gayzer, seting it at med gives 10 gas per trip but takes 12 from the gayzer and setting it to min gives 8 gas per trip but takes 6 from the gayzer.
So you need to balance it fairly regulary depending on your strategy and tactics. So as you can see this mechanic also has meaningful actions that relate to strategy and tactics.
The different settings will have a visual cue in the form of red circles at the bottom of the gas, 1 red circle means its set to min, 2 red circles means its set to med and 3 red circles means it is set to max.
Post your feedback!
Kinda like this one?
+ Show Spoiler +On November 12 2008 07:21 maybenexttime wrote: II. The gas mechanic:
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
FA's/my Mineral Mechanic does all that but all around better. You can learn why here and here. ;]
|
SC 2 is not really going to be macro or micro it will mostly just be superpowered people from the average point of view a.k.a. the people who just see the youtube vods but is it actually gonna have as much micro/macro as sc or is it just going to be more tactic/stratigic based does anyone have beta yet?
|
Here's an idea - have the workers gain experience as they mine minerals/gas. As their experience level increases, so does the efficiency with which they carry out that task.
So you start out with 2 workers in the gas refinery, but as their experience level increases, they spend less time in the refinery. Less time means more room for another worker. So you bring another one, and you have 3 in the refinery. As they continue to increase in experience, you can make room until the refinery is working at capacity of maybe 5 workers or something.
This could present some interesting micro early on int he game, because you'd have to make a choice at which time to pull workers off the minerals and put them into the gas. Or maybe you don't need them in there, because the 1 or 2 efficient workers are able to sustain you with the gas you need.
And then consider worker raids, and how this would impact gameplay. You'd definitely want to hold onto the more experienced workers in your lines, because they're making a marginally greater contribution. SO there'd be a lot of micro involved there of holding onto the experienced ones. Or when you expand to a new location - do you want to take the experiences workers and get things rolling faster, but with the higher risk of that base being raided and losing that "intellectual property"? Could be interesting.... There's a lot more to it, but what do you think about the general idea?
Simple, elegant, the n00b could use it without knowing it, and the expert could get huge advantages from it.
|
On December 25 2008 05:48 X3N0N wrote: Here's an idea - have the workers gain experience as they mine minerals/gas. As their experience level increases, so does the efficiency with which they carry out that task.
So you start out with 2 workers in the gas refinery, but as their experience level increases, they spend less time in the refinery. Less time means more room for another worker. So you bring another one, and you have 3 in the refinery. As they continue to increase in experience, you can make room until the refinery is working at capacity of maybe 5 workers or something.
This could present some interesting micro early on int he game, because you'd have to make a choice at which time to pull workers off the minerals and put them into the gas. Or maybe you don't need them in there, because the 1 or 2 efficient workers are able to sustain you with the gas you need.
And then consider worker raids, and how this would impact gameplay. You'd definitely want to hold onto the more experienced workers in your lines, because they're making a marginally greater contribution. SO there'd be a lot of micro involved there of holding onto the experienced ones. Or when you expand to a new location - do you want to take the experiences workers and get things rolling faster, but with the higher risk of that base being raided and losing that "intellectual property"? Could be interesting.... There's a lot more to it, but what do you think about the general idea?
Simple, elegant, the n00b could use it without knowing it, and the expert could get huge advantages from it.
But it clashes with a central concept in Starcraft. Units don´t gain experience because they are supposed to be replacable. Unlike, say, WC3 it´s relativly unimportant to keep units alive, allowing more "reckless" attacks since rescuing units might not be worth the effort.
Hang onto the idea and keep it for WC4.
|
Is in criteria that the mechanic -have to let macro minded players to differ from micro minded players - by allowing 2 types of gameplay like in brood war, and that question in bach16?
|
Vatican City State491 Posts
On December 19 2008 05:44 exeprime wrote: Uhm. Just had an idea which probably sucks, but hell, here it goes.
What if they removed the "Your base is under attack" warning and replace it with a generic message (something like... "combat is underway") that "fires" each time two units engage in combat or a unit attacks a structure? That could make harass a lot more "stealth" if timed right... you send a few units to engage the opponent's army while also doing a drop in his base. This would encourage players to pay closer attention to the minimap, but also to check the base after each little melee, to make sure there are no units dropped there perparing to attack.
After "firing" once when damage is first done, the message wouldn't "fire again" for something like 2-3 minutes or something, giving a window of time where "stealth" harass could happen, which could be further prolonged by timing another attack for the next warning.
Extra balancing would be required though - maybe things such as... You can't see a single unit (one that doesn't have any other "friendly" units in its sight range or something) of your opponent on the minimap. Or maybe individual "dots" on the minimap being very small, so you could only clearly see bigger groups. Or units having a "stealth value" - e.g. you can have 4 zerglings next to each other that don't show up on the minimap, but only 2 zealots, one tank and no "capital" units such as a carrier, battlecruiser or ultralisk.
This would make bases a lot more vulnerable, thereby making it more important to take care of them, moving screens to make sure they're nothing dodgy going on, etc.
On the downside, it *could* encourage building lots of defensive structures, and it could be a imba when it comes to races - a single "stealth" tank could probably deal a lot more damage than any of the other races' single units, due to range and damage.
Opinions?
edit: i know it's not exactly macro, but it would encourage moving screens, paying more attention to your bases (and generally to the whole map), and it would also add quite a lot of new stategic and tactical options to the players.
I dont like it because it rewards faster players who probably already can control everything without the warnings. Slower players are put at an disadvantage and this doesnt add much to the strategy nor gameplay. In addition Im not sure if you know that you can press the spacebar after hearing a warning and your screen will be centered on the spot. This shortcut has been included even in Warcraft 2 as far as I remember, and WC2 didnt have rally points, nor unit queues...
In addition the warnings are played only once as far as I know - just when the units are attacked - and no unit can withstand 2 or 3 minutes of bashing anyway..
There are no "stealth tanks" but shuttles with reavers. If you make them impossible to be seen on the map you reward the faster player even more - they can probably click faster to "be" in two places more often. Clicking faster doesnt mean that they "see" faster - both players probably control the minimap at the same "speed". Some players can see an attack coming but might be simply to slow to stop it and control their micro/macro at the same time; thus they are put at even worse disadvantage. Also in general you dont know where the enemy units are, unless you are using a maphack o_O You need to use overlords/obs/scans to search for them..
On December 20 2008 02:10 dcttr66 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2008 07:24 closed wrote:+ Show Spoiler + "REAL LIFE RESOURCES DISTRIBUTION" Minerals and gas should be kept in "storage points" that could connect with the production spots nearby (e.g. creep distance) in order to provide them with resources used to build. Every town hall would have its own mineral counter and range, in which it would provide them to other facilities (like pylons). Long connections should be either impossible to be made, or consist of “pipes” that would be easy to break (e.g. by muta harass); thus the players should be given the option to transport their resources to their factories (or perhaps “other/old” storage points) by means of peons. Alternatively, they should be given the option to send the resources instantly at a price (e.g. pay a “2” mineral transport fee for each 10 minerals transferred). Of course such things should be also overridden by giving the players the option to move their production facilities (either by floating/teleporting or even removing/selling them).
Continued from the beginning: Such a system of resource distribution could lead to certain tactical problems - e.g. a new expansion would need its own production facilities, otherwise the opponents could block the path to it, in order to cut off the player from his resources. Transportation could be solved in few ways: – being able to move minerals by means of the peons (e.g. every peon would grab 100 minerals in order to transport them) – of course the peons could die during the process -players should be able to create “visible pipes” (that could easily be destroyed) -players should be given the option to transport the resources instantly by means of some other way, that would cost them a “transport fee” (e.g. underground tunnels, teleports) – for each 10minerals moved this way, they would only get 6 -Perhaps the players should also be given the option to sell their production facilities in order to rebuild them somewhere else (but not the “quick sell” option from CC, to discourage selling damaged buildings). -Terrans could also fly their buildings; perhaps Protoss should be able to teleport them.
The only drawback of this idea are island maps - one would have to build a dropship to move the minerals (and dropships are fragile). Perhaps players would have to decide to gamble by using dropships, or stay with the reliable “magic transportation techniqes". This would unfortunately mean, that island expansions (that are already hard to defend), would bring lower revenues – but perhaps the mapmakers could balanced it out by placing “upgraded mineral formations” (e.g. special crystals) that would provide additional resources when mined (e.g. 12 minerals instead of 8). This way, islands would not be harmed by the “transport tax”.
lol this idea isn't just fun, it's funny!
Why is it funny? I believe that my idea is not about making the players to click more (which leads to a mindless clickfest with the faster player winning), but about adding more micro and macro possibilities, which need to be reconsidered (and require some additional control too).
This could lead to many interesting situations - e.g. killing a CC would not only mean a loss of "future" minerals, but also a loss of some of the minerals that were already mined - unless the players decide to transfer them etc.
I've submitted my idea to the contest. It's so irritating that they didnt set up any sort of autoresponder saying that they got the email..
|
On December 17 2008 22:40 talismania wrote: Here's an idea for terran: building upgrades.
How it works: instead of building new buildings, you can opt to upgrade the ones you already have for less cost in order to enhance their effectiveness / abilities. An SCV has to be called to the building to upgrade it, and if the building is a production building it would be inoperable during this time.
Example: you have a supply depot. you want another, but are cheap. So instead of spending 100 for a depot, you upgrade your existing depot for some lower amount, say 75 to get the additional 10 supply. For barracks, upgrades could increase the production rate, for example, or maybe even increase the hp of units built, I dunno.
Benefits of this feature: encourages user to come back to his base and manage it, as you must manually order an SCV over to the target building to upgrade it. Encourages choice-making: do I upgrade one depot a lot and risk that the enemy snipes it somehow, or do I build many? Do I want to upgrade that barracks now -- how will that affect my timing attack? Finally, it feels relatively natural, especially for terran, compared to the gas mechanic. It lends itself well to graphical representation as well. Also, it's easily balanced: you can adjust the power of the upgrades, upgrade time, nature of the upgrades, amount of upgrades, upgrade cost, etc.
Don't push them toward "stronger units" I'm sure they're already on the brink of hero units Q_Q
|
as posted already, the "solution" to the artificially created problem is already there - SC1 macro. It is interesting how much effort the developers are putting towards solving artificial problems they themselves are creating when the "solution" is there already there, and has been alpha-tested for the past 10 yrs.
|
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.
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
|
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!!!!!!!!!!
|
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
|
|
|
|