PDA

View Full Version : Should weapon upgrades affect defensive buildings



Perfecttear
05-15-2009, 07:11 AM
.

Do you think that the weapon upgrades should increase the defensive buidings damage?


Since not all people liked my advance defenses suggestion , im proposing a more plausible upgrade for the defencive buildings. Reasearching units damage upgrades should also increase the buildings damage. I've always wondered why that was not the case in sc1.
example:


Evolution Chamber : plus 1Missile Attacks would increase the spine crawlers attack.(like lurkers)

Forge : plus 1Ground Weapons would increase the Photton cannons attack.

Armory : plus 1 weapons would increase the Missile Turret damage.


Upgrades would increase the damage of buildings the same amount and way they increase units damage.

Alot of rts have it like this(age of empires,empire earth....)
The bunker alredy does more damage if you upgrade marines.

Discuss

Freespace
05-15-2009, 08:52 AM
Hey Perfecttear, you always make some interesting threads. Keep it up!

I'll have to go with their own upgrade option. I know a lot of people like the game kept simple, and not cumbersome, but I like extra upgrades and options.

unentschieden
05-15-2009, 09:09 AM
.

Upgrades would increase the damage of buildings the same amount and way they increase units damage.


These are intentionally individual. In a quite recent interview it was stated that as a unique advantage Weapon upgrades increase a Reapers Damage by 50% while any other unit "only" gets 20%.

That said on the issue itself: Donīt care. I donīt think that this would have a noticable effect on gameplay. It would make certain upgrades more valuable but I doubt more expensive.

mam219
05-15-2009, 09:10 AM
I think upgrading buildings encourages defensive/turtling behavior. Thus, I do not believe it would be a good option.

Audie Murphy
05-15-2009, 09:24 AM
I think upgrading buildings encourages defensive/turtling behavior. Thus, I do not believe it would be a good option.

This.

ChaosSmurf
05-15-2009, 10:25 AM
Upgrading damage? Maybe not.

Some sort of upgrade to defensive buildings, or buildings in general would be interesting though. We already know there's going to be a 6 man bunker upgrade in single-player (one of the between mission buyables, iirc); something like that would be interesting. Or something that changes the role of the building, upgradeable to each one itself (ala cannon towers/arrow towers in War3). Photon Cannons that now can only shoot at air, but hit harder or whatever.

Interesting idea, good thread.

Norfindel
05-15-2009, 10:38 AM
I think that special upgrades are better for the defensive structures, instead of using the same upgrades than the units. They could be "combo" upgrades, like the ones originally intended for the Zerg, for example, raise a Photon Cannon to "level 2" upgrade would increase the fire rate, and the amount of HP. Or add splash and one armor, or something like that.

I don't think it encourages turtling, as doing that would allow the enemy to take all the map, and also late game the unupgraded static defense is too weak for the amount of enemy units.

unentschieden
05-15-2009, 12:07 PM
Thats because they are supposed to become obsolete. Turtling is actually a proper strategy - what people actually hate is STALLING.
If you want to give static defense a post-Turtle purpose the upgrade should modify the buildings application not allow it to lengthen the game.
Terrans already do this with Salvage. Zerg can move their Crawlers and therefore offer a offense angle. Therefore Iīd rather have a upgrade for Protoss only that broadens their Cannons functionality.

Perfecttear
05-15-2009, 12:33 PM
Upgrading damage? Maybe not.

Some sort of upgrade to defensive buildings, or buildings in general would be interesting though. We already know there's going to be a 6 man bunker upgrade in single-player (one of the between mission buyables, iirc); something like that would be interesting. Or something that changes the role of the building, upgradeable to each one itself (ala cannon towers/arrow towers in War3). Photon Cannons that now can only shoot at air, but hit harder or whatever.

Interesting idea, good thread.

My initial suggestion was for bunkers with greater cappaciy and single upgrades, but people attack the suggestion saying that defending=devil .
So here i am with a more simplified suggestion, that there should be upgrades for buildings like for units. If you can upgrade the armor of units, then why can't you upgrade the damage of buildings to react to the armor upgrade? About 80% of all rts i have played have the possibility to upgrade defenses, and that hasen't lead to mass turtling in those games. And people are still crying about that this would lead to mass turtling :P These would add just an another form of strategy to the game which it previously lacked.
You have a choice, upgrading the attack od defenses or using those resources for some other upgrade. Attack and deffense are both part of a succesfull strategy.
Can anybody please explain to me, why it is such a bad thing if you are playing defensively? I sommetimes play defensively early on an go for fast tech, and lategame tech push.So by some people logic i'm not supposed to play the game the way i like it, since it bothers them. Okay i drifted way off the topic , and probaly didn't make any sense :p

.

ChaosSmurf
05-15-2009, 12:44 PM
I think the problem people see with this is that every match up (if it wasn't balanced properly, or even if it was) could end up like original StarCraft TvT - which isn't the most exciting spectator sport. Fuck, it's not very fun to play, nevermind watch.

Noise
05-15-2009, 12:53 PM
I think upgrading buildings encourages defensive/turtling behavior. Thus, I do not believe it would be a good option.

Yep this is my thinking too. You can easily defend your base with units, in fact it almost always preferable, upgrades aside.

Perfecttear
05-15-2009, 01:14 PM
Yep this is my thinking too. You can easily defend your base with units, in fact it almost always preferable, upgrades aside.
" I agree , infact i think they should actually remove all defensive buildings, so nobody can defend it's base with buildings since buildings encourages defensive/turtling behavior. And units only have to be used for defence." :rolleyes:

Noise
05-15-2009, 01:28 PM
You got me

unentschieden
05-15-2009, 01:53 PM
" I agree , infact i think they should actually remove all defensive buildings, so nobody can defend it's base with buildings since buildings encourages defensive/turtling behavior. And units only have to be used for defence." :rolleyes:

Turtling is actually a proper strategy - what people actually hate is STALLING.
If you want to give static defense a post-Turtle purpose the upgrade should modify the buildings application not allow it to lengthen the game.
Terrans already do this with Salvage. Zerg can move their Crawlers and therefore offer a offense angle. Therefore Iīd rather have a upgrade for Protoss only that broadens their Cannons functionality.

There, try changing my words in my mouth. :D

Norfindel
05-15-2009, 03:04 PM
I think the problem people see with this is that every match up (if it wasn't balanced properly, or even if it was) could end up like original StarCraft TvT - which isn't the most exciting spectator sport. Fuck, it's not very fun to play, nevermind watch.
Wow! wait a second there! I think that nobody want static defense to be *that* powerfull. The idea is to give some bonus late game to be able to get some more time until the enemy units break the defenses, not the enemy units to be unable to break the defenses. To be honest, the Terrans with some kind of choke in their bases have a very difficult to break defense right now, taking some Bunkers and Siege Tanks as defense.

What maked TvT crap in BW was that, as the Siege Tank cannot move while in Siege Mode, and at the same time, cannot resist it's own firepower at all, there was no way of countering them by ground, as any other Terran ground unit would instantly evaporate under Siege Tank fire, and air units wasn't an option, considering that you need a lot of Wraiths to kill a few Turrets without sustaining heavy damage, and they take an eternity to kill several Tanks.

At least the Terrans have Banshees now, and the Thors should be useful for this, but i have my doubts. Marauders? i don't know... i feel this can potentially be a problem again, not that severe, but can still be there.

Santrega
05-15-2009, 03:07 PM
I think the problem people see with this is that every match up (if it wasn't balanced properly, or even if it was) could end up like original StarCraft TvT - which isn't the most exciting spectator sport. Fuck, it's not very fun to play, nevermind watch.

I dont like this idea because it will create a situation where someone just builds defensive outposts everywhere and does their upgrades.

However, I disagree with you about TvT not being fun. I loved to play the sc DEMO, which was TvT. It was extraordinarily fun because every unit had its uses. You had the option to expand quickly, or to rush your opponent. You could tech to nuke, or go BCs, or you could mass a large group of wraiths to counter a BC attack. In games where no one rushes, you basically build up the best defense you can on byways, and it turned into a chess match. You have to find a weakspot, attack that weakspot, and break through.

It may not be fun to watch, but It's extremely fun to play when all units can be used, and if on a small map like "byways" from the sc demo.

Every unit was usable in the demo.. Firebats, Marines, Tanks, Vultures, Goliaths, Wraiths, BCs, SVs...

-Firebats helped against marines
-Tanks, Bunkers, and Turrets set the defensive wall up blocking all access points.
-Vultures were good for setting up minefields and be aware of incoming attacks, and stopping ghosts.
-Wraiths were good harrassment and attackers with cloak, also good at countering BCs.
-BCs were good at breaking through turrets and defensive walls (yamato)
-Science vessals were needed for defensive matrix/detection
-Goliaths were good all around support for attacks, and air defense.

However, when you throw in the other races, it throws the balance of TvT off too, and eventually in sc:bw, a few units on every race were pretty much useless toward winning...

I tried to remake byways in sc:bw because of the fun, but I don't remember how much fun I had on it. I should have made the map TvT again, and tested out how it stands up w/ patches/bw units.

Maybe TvT on small maps like byways isnt fun for BW, I'm not really sure... But it sure was fun on the demo...

Crazy_Jonny
05-15-2009, 03:23 PM
Anyone remember this?
http://sclegacy.com/images/uploaded//starcraftiinews/purchasescreen.jpg

Building upgrades look like theyre gonna be in single player, but not multiplayer.

The purpose of defense buildings have always been to defend yourself in the early game. If you could upgrade your buildings, then they alone could fight your battles. A game could go on forever, and thats something I think the Dev team isnt going for.

The_Blade
05-15-2009, 03:41 PM
As I said before currently the turret got ups involved with range and firepower. Duno if the protoss will get some improvements. Probably zerg will get only more hp or armor on their defences as their movility works quite well.

having individual ups on buildings is quite unlikely probably a general building armor or something else would be included in SP (planetary fortress, hive and upgrades on protoss shield should do to protect main buildings)

MattII
05-15-2009, 03:46 PM
Yes they damn well should, if a single upgrade can affect the Stalker, Immortal and Disruptor (Nullifier) there's no reason it shouldn't also effect the Photon Cannon.

Triceron
05-15-2009, 04:21 PM
I like the way it is right now, Terrans having scalable damage upgrade (Siege Tanks, Marines in bunkers), Protoss having shield upgrades for all buildings.

I wouldn't mind if there were global base defense upgrades like there were in Warcraft 3 (Humans had AC/HP upgrades, NE get a static AC upgrade, Orcs get spikes and reinforced burrows/towers). Something like that would be cool for SC, but I'd love to see it more as singleplayer than multi.

Norfindel
05-15-2009, 06:48 PM
The purpose of defense buildings have always been to defend yourself in the early game. If you could upgrade your buildings, then they alone could fight your battles. A game could go on forever, and thats something I think the Dev team isnt going for.
I don't think it's only meant to defend yourself early game, i see them more useful to delay the enemy until you get your units there, as you cannot have units everywhere. At least not with the Protoss, with their high-supply units.
For the static defense to fight your battles, they would need to be much more powerfull than they're now. In fact, they're only usefull if the terrain restricts the enemy, as they would be wiped out pretty easily in the open, unless you built a hell of a lot of them, but most of the time isn't cost-effective to do that.
Anyways, there are units that can shot them down from outside their range, so that's not going to happend no matter the case.
I don't know why everyone assumes that the upgrade is going to be hyper-game-breaking. The OP is suggesting upgrading the static defense with the same upgrades than the units. That can be as light as adding +1 to it's attack, or +1 to it's armor, or as higher as needed. I don't see something like that particularily overpowering.

Perfecttear
05-15-2009, 06:49 PM
Yes they damn well should, if a single upgrade can affect the Stalker, Immortal and Disruptor (Nullifier) there's no reason it shouldn't also effect the Photon Cannon.
Yes someone agrees :), and i want to point out that i don't want defensive buildings to be overpovered, i only want them to be the same affective through the game. An enemy researches +1 defenses you in return research +1 attack, so it negates the upgrade.It works this way for the units so why shouldnt it for the buildings?
I would reall love it, if there was something that would give more strategy to defences in sc2, because in sc1 there wasn't really much strategy with them.
Every modern rts has scalable defenses.
The more there are different strategies and options in sc2 the better!!!


This :


For the static defense to fight your battles, they would need to be much more powerfull than they're now. In fact, they're only usefull if the terrain restricts the enemy, as they would be wiped out pretty easily in the open, unless you built a hell of a lot of them, but most of the time isn't cost-effective to do that.
Anyways, there are units that can shot them down from outside their range, so that's not going to happend no matter the case.
I don't know why everyone assumes that the upgrade is going to be hyper-game-breaking.

TwoTimer
05-17-2009, 11:09 PM
In singleplayer: Unless the ai is vastly improved and made to think more like a human (something we won't know until the final release), having singleplayer only ups for buildings won't make much a difference, if you're good enough you will kill the comp with or without them.

In multiplayer: It wasn't the building's added attack or defense that made them really strong in the other RTS franchises (AoE, etc). It was these building's combo of godly hp and armor that changes the landscape of those games. Combo it with the idea that you can have multiple workers making a building at once (impossible in BW due to balance, the closest you get is several SCV's repairing at once), it makes strategies like forward bases (proxy gate/proxy rax in BW's) possible, viable and even necessary being that units are slow in those games at the start.

Pick
05-18-2009, 12:14 AM
I always liked the fact that as units get upgraded into the late game, then static defenses that cannot be upgraded become less and less useful.

In my opinion it should be something like this:

Early Game: if you spend enough resources on static defenses, it will make your base damn near invincible.

Middle Game: static defenses are still useful against small raids and harassment but a full assault will crush them.

Late Game: fully upgraded units will laugh at your static defenses as they eat your workers.

I am basing this on how fast a player can afford to max out upgrades and not really a specific time limit of game length. This will encourage unit upgrades and help long games from going on forever.

TwoTimer
05-18-2009, 10:34 PM
That's now it is exactly in brood war, and again its difficult to meddle with near perfection.