PDA

View Full Version : What do you think about giving Protoss a Gas Mechanic?



ArcherofAiur
12-15-2009, 07:51 PM
BTW have you been reading our Macro threads (Archer's threads), what do you think about our proposed Protoss mechanics? You realize this is an attempt to get you to spill some beans about what Blizz is developing :P

Yes, we've been following the thread you're referring to and we're quite interested in the discussion going on there.
I suggest you to continue posting your suggestions because your opinion matters to us, even if we don't always reply to every single thread.
-Zhydaris




In Zhydaris own words Blizzard is "quite interested" in the thread I started on BNet about giving Protoss a Gas Mechanic. So I would like to pose the same two questions to this community that I posed in that thread.

1) With the Protoss Macro Mechanics being redone, what do people think about giving Protoss a gas mechanic?

2) Would a unique way to aquire and use gas fit with Protoss gameplay, lore and feel?




Feel free to add any concerns or suggestions you may have. Also if you guys want to make sure your thoughts on a Protoss Gas Mechanic are heard then you might want to also post in the BNET thread:
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=21730644558&sid=3000


http://www.sc2armory.com/img/protoss/buildings/assimilator.jpg

RamiZ
12-15-2009, 07:56 PM
Why the hell would we give only to Protoss Gas Mechanic? WTF? I don't like gas mechanics and even if they have to be there why would only Protoss has them?

DemolitionSquid
12-15-2009, 07:56 PM
Didn't you yourself once state that this was a bad idea?

ArcherofAiur
12-15-2009, 07:58 PM
Didn't you yourself once state that this was a bad idea?

My personal view right now is that it depends on implementation and enviroment. I think it has allot of potential right now though.




Why the hell would we give only to Protoss Gas Mechanic? WTF? I don't like gas mechanics and even if they have to be there why would only Protoss has them?

Can you explain your thoughts allittle better?

Perfecttear
12-15-2009, 08:09 PM
Why the hell would we give only to Protoss Gas Mechanic? WTF? I don't like gas mechanics and even if they have to be there why would only Protoss has them?
Please clarify Archer;)

RamiZ
12-15-2009, 08:29 PM
Don't really know what should I explain. All three races got Macro Mechanics, none of them got Gas Mechanic. Why would you give Gas Mechanic only to one race? So Protoss can have more gas then the others? I am against Gas Macro Mechanics, but if you already are going to include that in the game, include them for all three races, not just one...

ArcherofAiur
12-15-2009, 08:32 PM
Don't really know what should I explain. All three races got Macro Mechanics, none of them got Gas Mechanic. Why would you give Gas Mechanic only to one race? So Protoss can have more gas then the others? I am against Gas Macro Mechanics, but if you already are going to include that in the game, include them for all three races, not just one...

Well the idea would be something like this

Terran = Mineral Advantage (MULE)
Zerg = Unit Production Advantage (Spawn Larva)
Protoss = Gas Advantage (??????)

By being able to gather increased gas Protoss would have fewer but better units compared to other races.

RamiZ
12-15-2009, 08:45 PM
Well the idea would be something like this

Terran = Mineral Advantage (MULE)
Zerg = Unit Production Advantage (Spawn Larva)
Protoss = Gas Advantage (??????)

By being able to gather increased gas Protoss would have fewer but better units compared to other races.

Oh so you wanted to change Protoss current Macro Mechanic for Gas Mechanic? Now I get it, I thought you wanted both of them. Well still it isn't balanced. MULES are only for Minerals, and Zerg has for units and Minerals, that is why Spawn Larvae is better than all other Macro Mechanics. But Gas Advantage wouldn't be balanced since Gas doesn't have the same value as Minerals. Making some races gather Mineral faster and some Gas really doesn't help you with the balance, and in my opinion, can't be balanced at all.

For example just look at the P vs Z match. Protoss have units like HTs that cost about 50/150. So he will be able to mass just them and Archons, and I am not seeing how Zerg without Dark Swarm will counter mass Archons and HTs.

ArcherofAiur
12-15-2009, 08:45 PM
Amazing. Right now the poll is the exact opposite of an identical one at TL.

DemolitionSquid
12-15-2009, 08:46 PM
Amazing. Right now the poll is the exact opposite of an identical one at TL.

Because unlike TL, we realize better balance is more important than more macro.

ArcherofAiur
12-15-2009, 08:47 PM
MULES are only for Minerals, and Zerg has for units and Minerals, that is why Spawn Larvae is better than all other Macro Mechanics. But Gas Advantage wouldn't be balanced since Gas doesn't have the same value as Minerals. Making some races gather Mineral faster and some Gas really doesn't help you with the balance, and in my opinion, can't be balanced at all.

lol thats how the math works

Minerals = 1 benefit

Units = 1 benefits

2 benefits > 1 benefit




I have so much about balance to learn from you guys :p



Because unlike TL, we realize better balance is more important than more macro.

[Uber sarcasm]I keep forgeting TL knows nothing about balance.[/Uber sarcasm]

RamiZ
12-15-2009, 08:48 PM
lol thats how the math works

Minerals = 1 benefit

Units = 1 benefits

2 benefits > 1 benefit




I have so much about balance to learn from you guys :p
You are not helping. -.-

starcraft2fr34k
12-15-2009, 08:50 PM
Gas mechanics are useless becuz they dont help the gameplay any better and most of the units dont even require that much gas to produce so it will be better if its a mineral mechanics becuz Protoss units cost more minerals than any other races!! Overall, we have 2 gas places to get gas from instead of 1 gas station like in SC1 (hello??? THIS is SC2 now so we have 2 places and we start with more miners)...DUh???!!

PsiWarp
12-15-2009, 08:52 PM
Moar Disruptors, High Templar and Colossi are always good :D?

Sounds nice, I wouldn't mind having a gas boost.


-Psi

ArcherofAiur
12-15-2009, 08:52 PM
Gas mechanics are useless becuz they dont help the gameplay any better and most of the units dont even require that much gas to produce so it will be better if its a mineral mechanics becuz Protoss units cost more minerals than any other races!! Overall, we have 2 gas places to get gas from instead of 1 gas station like in SC1 (hello??? THIS is SC2 now so we have 2 places and we start with more miners)...DUh???!!

[still sarcastic] Your right. Gas in Starcraft 2 is definatly more plentiful and less valuable than gas in Starcraft 1.[/still sarcastic]

RamiZ
12-15-2009, 08:55 PM
Gas mechanics are useless becuz they dont help the gameplay any better and most of the units dont even require that much gas to produce so it will be better if its a mineral mechanics becuz Protoss units cost more minerals than any other races!! Overall, we have 2 gas places to get gas from instead of 1 gas station like in SC1 (hello??? THIS is SC2 now so we have 2 places and we start with more miners)...DUh???!!

But even with 2 gases, those who played SC2 at Blizzcon or w/e said that they had over 2k minerals but never had enough of gas. Why? Cause of Macro Mechanics that affects only Minerals. So Gas IS the problem in SC2. But I still think we should not include gas mechanics.

Gifted
12-15-2009, 09:49 PM
Archer, you've touched a point where I feel the need to come out of the woodwork. In all games with solid balance there is one thing in common to success. There has to be a limiting factor that the entire game can base off of as the game progresses.

While many things may separate races or factions in a game, one thing will always have to be a common factor to allow relational points between the races. In StarCraft 2, I truly believe this one factor is gas. The progression of the game itself is based around this simple aspect. The fact that stability is judged on gas itself allows other aspects, such as minerals, to be flexible to a degree.

In short, though Blizzard is open to consider any new ideas and will encourage discussion regarding the matter, I believe that they aren't considering your points as "this is something to try" but rather using it as a springboard to look into mechanics that might be better suited than the one in place.

The ability to improve gas speed of one out of three races will be counteracted in some form. Therefore creating an "illusion" of a gas mechanic. Final point: No matter how far this proceeds, I can only see it as a point where other mechanics can be thought of... but the gas mechanic itself will fluxuate one of the only two stable balancing points between a tripod faction structure... gas and time. The issues regarding a decision like this will show further over time instead of in the short term.

EDIT: While I do want to congratulate you on looking at new avenues to fix issues you perceive... I ultimately believe that this is a case of a mismatched solution for an unfriendly problem.

Crazy_Jonny
12-15-2009, 09:50 PM
Well the idea would be something like this

Terran = Mineral Advantage (MULE)
Zerg = Unit Production Advantage (Spawn Larva)
Protoss = Gas Advantage (??????)

By being able to gather increased gas Protoss would have fewer but better units compared to other races.

I think this would give the protoss an early game disadvantage. If the point is to encourage teching up, then it forces the player into a turtling strategy. Perhaps it could be remedied if everything costed a lot more gas, but then it would discourage using low tier units in the late game. We like Zealots still having use even when at tier 3, right?

It just creates more problems than it solves. Making this kind of change would require reworking the whole tech tree, at least thats how I see it.

KneeofJustice
12-15-2009, 09:56 PM
Gas and mineral incomes shouldnt be too different from SC in terms of the ratio. I dont want to be waiting for gas OR minerals. If i do everything properly, they should come in at the proper amount.

The macro mechanics should be equal but different. One race getting gas more quickly doesnt seem good unless their units costs were balanced accordingly (and that would just make it useless right?)

If one race has a production bonus, they all should (reactor, warp in, spawn larvae)

If one race has a macro mechanic, they all should (PC (scrapped?), MULE, and spawn larvae (achieves saturation more quickly, plus a possible discount of 10m per drone)).

If a mineral macro mechanic makes gas seem scarce, they need to add a gas mechanic or change the rates of mining or something.

Its something to start with IMO, but i dont think its as simple as production vs. minerals vs. gas

Gt2slurp
12-15-2009, 09:59 PM
Why «A protoss gas mechanic»*always means «more gas for protoss»... I mean, the archer's mule is not giving more mineral than actual mule, but the mechanic is deeper.

This mechanic could be the same, giving some timed gas boost to help producing critical unit at critical moment. Before or after you have less gas so you need to time well. I dont know how to do it, but what you do you think of the core mechanic?

Josue
12-15-2009, 10:45 PM
ENOUGH!

I don't think such a mechanic should be added only to the protoss.
if should ever happen, should go for the three races!

n00bonicPlague
12-15-2009, 10:58 PM
There's always my dual gas and mineral mechanic idea......

It's for all three races......

ArcherofAiur
12-15-2009, 11:11 PM
I think people here get way to hung up on balance. Im pretty sure at this point every new idea in Starcraft 2 has been called imbalanced. Heck I remember when I was talking about racially unique macro mechanics a year ago and people were saying "They'd be impossible to balance. Blizzard would never do that!"


And the best part about all of this is that in 3 years the racially diverse resource mechanics will be praised as one of the most incredible things about Starcraft 2. Its funny how history repeats itself.

Josue
12-15-2009, 11:41 PM
There's always my dual gas and mineral mechanic idea......

It's for all three races......

and that's one of the reasons it sound logical, unlike Archer's one, which is... just crazy.
*sigh* I feel (and I think I'm talking for most of us that have seen so many ideas pass by) that we're running out of good ideas. I just hope some attention is paid to n00bonicPlague's idea.

ArcherofAiur
12-15-2009, 11:43 PM
and that's one of the reasons it sound logical, unlike Archer's one, which is... just crazy.


Wait which idea?
My Remote Mining MULE idea which everyone loves?

Quirel
12-15-2009, 11:43 PM
Gas mechanics are useless becuz they dont help the gameplay any better and most of the units dont even require that much gas to produce so it will be better if its a mineral mechanics becuz Protoss units cost more minerals than any other races!! Overall, we have 2 gas places to get gas from instead of 1 gas station like in SC1 (hello??? THIS is SC2 now so we have 2 places and we start with more miners)...DUh???!!

As a sig somewhere around here says...
"Flawless English doesn't equate to flawless logic, but it doesn't help your argument if you sound like a retard."

I voted yes, because I see Protoss using more gas per unit than the other races. So, if done right, I don't think a gas mechanic could hurt.

Of course, this is offered as an uninformed opinion, so please take it as such.

Josue
12-15-2009, 11:50 PM
Wait which idea?
My Remote Mining MULE idea which everyone loves?

No, " What do you think about giving Protoss a Gas Mechanic?"
that one. If you ask me, I posted I liked the other one (the mule one), but not this one.

ArcherofAiur
12-15-2009, 11:53 PM
For the sake of actually making progress on this issue do you guys have any problems with it if balance wasnt an issue. Say it could be balanced. What would you think then?




Also second question, if (when) I am right again and Blizzard does give Protoss a gas mechanic, what reward do I get?


Im hoping for the title Master Theorycrafter, or maybe for everyone to just be more open minded from then on...

Josue
12-15-2009, 11:56 PM
For the sake of actually making progress on this issue do you guys have any problems with it if balance wasnt an issue. Say it could be balanced. What would you think then?

that it should go for the three races to be balanced, otherwise it's unthinkable since it's impossible to think of a way to make it work.
n00bonicPlague's idea was going that way (for the three races )and was interesting.

Draco
12-16-2009, 12:23 AM
How about a super Probe that can mine minerals faster, gas faster, and build faster?

Gt2slurp
12-16-2009, 12:27 AM
that it should go for the three races to be balanced, otherwise it's unthinkable since it's impossible to think of a way to make it work.

It's possible if you don't think of it in term of pure gain, there is many way to change the relation between protoss and gas (lol) without making them harvest more in the long run. I don't have the mechanic itself (I leave that to master theorycrafter) but can you guys be more open minded and stop shouting Balance!! everywere for nothing?

ArcherofAiur
12-16-2009, 12:31 AM
It in their nature. People just have this assumption that everything is already balanced and if you change something it will throw this magical equation out of order. Remember how many people complained that the zerg macro mechanic sucked because you had to pay for the workers and terran and protoss just got free minerals. Then people realized how powerful it really was.


I don't have the mechanic itself (I leave that to master theorycrafter)

The Master Theorycrafter :D

MattII
12-16-2009, 12:42 AM
What about an upgrade (individual rather than global) that allows your Assilimilator to warp the gas packets back to the Nexus instead of having to rely on Probes to carry them back?

KadajSouba
12-16-2009, 01:10 AM
Im against any mechanics that involve economics. I mean if it aint broken dont fix it. Resource gathering was flawless. Perfect. All three races got the same chance to gather resources at the same rate. But u decide how to spend them. Thats it. Dont know why they want to mess up with economic mechanics when what we want is battle mechanics. I mean really???? U want to "control" ur mineral and gas income???? Shit thats very exciting, I waited 11 years so the new game turn the most simple mechanic in Starcraft (resource gathering) into a macro nightmare.

When they said that they were working on macro mechanics for protoss I expected something cool. But if they are checking stuff like this, then my hopes are dead.

Nicol Bolas
12-16-2009, 02:10 AM
This mechanic could be the same, giving some timed gas boost to help producing critical unit at critical moment.

The concern is this.

Blizzard has deliberately and purposefully (they've said this themselves) made gas more valuable in SC2. No more depletion mining, having to use 6 workers (8 for Zerg) to get the same income as in SC1, increased gas costs for particular units, etc. These are all efforts at making gas into a particularly valuable resource.

Giving the Protoss a mechanism, whatever that mechanism is, to increase their intake of gas is dubious. Let's say it gives the Protoss 10% extra gas compared to the Terrans.

Because gas is more valuable, minerals are comparitively less valuable. So the Terran mechanic must naturally be less valuable per unit mineral. Thus, to keep things in relative balance, something must change. Either Mules/etc must give disproportionately more minerals, or Protoss units that cost gas need to have their gas cost raised.

The latter poses a problem: namely, that it makes the gas mechanic worthless by comparison. Failure to properly use it puts you well behind where the Terrans are, even if they don't use Mules themselves. Because your gas-heavy units cost more than theirs, you have to do something like stay a base ahead or take other risky action in order to be effective.

The former (more minerals from Terran mechanic) poses a different problem. As valuable as gas is, Terrans don't need anything but a small amount for Marines and Hellions. Gas to buy a couple of buildings and a small number of upgrades. They could probably get that off of a single geyser. Which means that a Terran now has the resources to power lots of Barrackses with Reactors. That means lots of Marines. The Protoss's counters for mass units don't really show up until the very bottom of the tree (Colossi/HTs); they could easily get steamrolled just from gasless Terrans with proper Mule/etc use.

This kind of change is intrinsically dangerous. It can make the game go bad very easily. I simply don't think it's worth it.


And the best part about all of this is that in 3 years the racially diverse resource mechanics will be praised as one of the most incredible things about Starcraft 2. Its funny how history repeats itself.

Yeah, let's look at that history.

This history includes SC1. Where the balance between races collapsed to such a degree that 2/3rds of the Terran matches involved the same units used in the same way.

There's "imbalance" and "unbalance." When you have a live game that millions of people are playing and watching, imbalance is still unacceptable, but you can live with some unbalance. When you're designing a game, willful unbalance is not acceptable.

It's OK to let things be corrected in the metagame. But you had damn well better know first that the metagame can correct them. There's this general belief, particularly among the TL crowd, that StarCraft cannot be imbalanced, that any change will eventually be ironed out in the metagame (or with map-making), that the single optimal strategy for victory can never be achieved.

This might even be true. But it is not something that you should rely on in the game design phase. When you hit Beta, you should be thinking, "This game is perfectly balanced and there is no unbalance here." When the game ships, you should be thinking the same thing. The same thing should be thought after every patch.

It doesn't matter that you're wrong every time. What matters is that the thought process ensures that you're trying every time, rather than just saying "screw it. Let most Terran matches devolve to STs."


I mean if it aint broken dont fix it.

Yeah. Siege Tanks aren't broke, so let's leave them exactly as they were in SC1. And Marines. Those were perfect, so let's never change them at all. :rolleyes:


All three races got the same chance to gather resources at the same rate.

Except for the Zerg, who's Drones actually mine slower than the others. And because they can't constantly pump Drones due to centralized production.

AegisKHAOS
12-16-2009, 02:11 AM
Im against any mechanics that involve economics. I mean if it aint broken dont fix it. Resource gathering was flawless. Perfect. All three races got the same chance to gather resources at the same rate. But u decide how to spend them. Thats it. Dont know why they want to mess up with economic mechanics when what we want is battle mechanics. I mean really???? U want to "control" ur mineral and gas income???? Shit thats very exciting, I waited 11 years so the new game turn the most simple mechanic in Starcraft (resource gathering) into a macro nightmare.

Precisely my thought, especially true since the amount of gas you gather is significantly less compared to minerals. I wouldn't mind so much an upgrade to the resource gathering, so long as it's the same for all three races, but making a unique mechanic especially for one that is gas, and all for the sake of timed clicking, doesn't sit well at all. If people are so concerned with skill levels and APMs and the like, put it somewhere else, leave the resources alone.


When they said that they were working on macro mechanics for protoss I expected something cool. But if they are checking stuff like this, then my hopes are dead.

Given that they're working on an alternative to the obelisk, unless they intend to ditch the current macro mechanics altogether, expect this to be an alternative to PC.

Perfecttear
12-16-2009, 02:20 AM
I don't like it, since blizzard obviously intended only one race to have a gas macro mechanic and more gas, and that is the Zerg, with their spawn larva.
Balance wise i don't think it would be agood idea for the protoss to have more gas than the zerg. ;)

Gifted
12-16-2009, 04:46 AM
Nicol has restated a lot of the vital points on why the gas mechanics will contribute more difficulty to the game than benefits. Ultimately, it's not a notion of "This will make the races unbalanced" so much as "gas is one of the common denominators that measures balance".

When you look at the scope of gameplay, shifting one of the core balancing factors will show more of it's flaws to overcome if you look at the scope in the late/end game than in the early game. The explanation I've attempted to write the last 5 minutes would involve a wall of text, one which would probably spur more debate than actual examination. The ultimate point is that it's my opinion (supported general gameplay design theory) that the gain is less than the problems created by this specific suggestion. It would show more so in the long term.



Also second question, if (when) I am right again and Blizzard does give Protoss a gas mechanic, what reward do I get?

Im hoping for the title Master Theorycrafter, or maybe for everyone to just be more open minded from then on...No one on Blizzard's staff gets any glory or respect if an idea makes it through. It's a team effort on their behalf and for the record, I already know that they've attempted gas mechanics a long time ago. It would be rather disrespectful to "claim the idea as your own" only because you get some sort of blue response saying "we're interested in this discussion". It's also a bit disrespectful to anyone else who discussed points on the subject as it implies that your discussion is more important than those who discussed it with you. You might want to take a step back and consider things like this, it could be perceived as inconsiderate. >.< (Remember.. just because you STARTED the discussion regarding the idea doesn't mean that your idea specifically could be the one examined.. every person in that discussion could bring forward a point that Blizzard values..)

I think maybe you should worry a bit more about your contributions to the mechanic idea and a bit less about how others perceive you.


I don't like it, since blizzard obviously intended only one race to have a gas macro mechanic and more gas, and that is the Zerg, with their spawn larva.
Balance wise i don't think it would be agood idea for the protoss to have more gas than the zerg. ;)Something to consider is that there is currently a limiting factor that balances the income of gas on every race. That's the total amount of gas income per second. This is a static value that directly corelates to the amount of gas geysers each race controls with assumption that the minimum travel distance is achieved. The only thing that Zerg are more potent about is being able to obtain drones faster and therefore reach the maximum gas per second ratio faster.

KadajSouba
12-16-2009, 05:36 AM
Yeah. Siege Tanks aren't broke, so let's leave them exactly as they were in SC1. And Marines. Those were perfect, so let's never change them at all. :rolleyes:



Errrr the general idea was that they are trying to complicate the most simple MECHANIC of the entire game. Please care to read and have a better comprenhension of what people writes, before trying to be sarcastic. :o

Gt2slurp
12-16-2009, 08:36 AM
Errrr the general idea was that they are trying to complicate the most simple MECHANIC of the entire game.

We could have said that for the zerg unit production. Selecting a building and press a key to make an unit is pretty simple, why adding fuc*** larva to complicate this!? The whole larva thing is balanced, zerg can save up larva for precise timing (3 hatch muta) without having more larva in the long run.

What if the «gas mechanic» work like that, you engage the «gas proton charge» lets say the «neutron charge» (lame physicist joke), and then you harvest more gas for a certain time but you cant have it right now, only at the end of the «charge». You can use this gas boost (+250 is a good number) to make archon timing push or anything that cost a lot of gas. And then you probe carry 1 or 2 less gas per trip until you have refunded, you can reuse the «neutron charge» only when refund is completed.

Is that acceptable? I dont see the way it can be unballance. The collecting rate is the same if we considere a complete cycle. It's just about timing well your gas push. And if this cause a nightmare to you, just dont use it, you dont suffer any gas loss for not using the mechanic.

ArcherofAiur
12-16-2009, 08:50 AM
No one on Blizzard's staff gets any glory or respect if an idea makes it through. It's a team effort on their behalf and for the record, I already know that they've attempted gas mechanics a long time ago. It would be rather disrespectful to "claim the idea as your own" only because you get some sort of blue response saying "we're interested in this discussion". It's also a bit disrespectful to anyone else who discussed points on the subject as it implies that your discussion is more important than those who discussed it with you. You might want to take a step back and consider things like this, it could be perceived as inconsiderate. >.< (Remember.. just because you STARTED the discussion regarding the idea doesn't mean that your idea specifically could be the one examined.. every person in that discussion could bring forward a point that Blizzard values..)

I want to state this in clear nonjudgemental langauge so people dont consider it inconsiderate.

1) I never claimed that all gas mechanics were completly and solely my intellectual proprety. Also im not saying Blizzard IS putting a gas mechanic in the game. Im saying Blizzard is interested in a thread on BNET about protoss gas mechanics (which they said as much). Furthermore I havnt even mentioned one of my gas mechanic ideas in this thread so im confused why you would think Id "claim the idea as your own".

2) Master Theorycrafter is a running joke from a couple posts back.

3) Im trying to spur intellectual discussion on a topic Blizzard has expressed interest in (some thing you have done in the past with roach threads I believe)

4) I appreciate that your just trying to help me be less focused on how people percieve me. All I can offer is that the intent of my statements was in no way focused on how people percieve me. Which brings us to the real point of the post which was,

5) I want people to recognize a pattern in what they initially think is imbalanced and what actually turns out to be imbalanced. Many people claimed that race specific macro would be imbalanced. So far Blizzard has not once said this is a concern.

6) Thats what I want to people to realize. In the past I (and some others) have looked past what initially seems unbalanced and said "hey there is some interesting gameplay here, this might work". We dont let thoughts like "oh it will be different from the other races and therefore it cant be balanced" stand in the way of creative exploration.

7)I firmly believe that you cant know balance just by looking at something on paper. Thats why it pains me that so much of forum chat revolves around it. Instead of talking about deeper matters for which blizzard could actually use the feedback.

ArcherofAiur
12-16-2009, 09:31 AM
The concern is this.

Blizzard has deliberately and purposefully (they've said this themselves) made gas more valuable in SC2. No more depletion mining, having to use 6 workers (8 for Zerg) to get the same income as in SC1, increased gas costs for particular units, etc. These are all efforts at making gas into a particularly valuable resource.

Giving the Protoss a mechanism, whatever that mechanism is, to increase their intake of gas is dubious. Let's say it gives the Protoss 10% extra gas compared to the Terrans.

Because gas is more valuable, minerals are comparitively less valuable. So the Terran mechanic must naturally be less valuable per unit mineral. Thus, to keep things in relative balance, something must change. Either Mules/etc must give disproportionately more minerals, or Protoss units that cost gas need to have their gas cost raised.

Why would Protoss units that cost gas have to have their gas cost raised? Granting Protoss extra gas to buy more high gas units would be the benefit to counteract the mineral and unit production advantage of Terran and Zerg.



The former (more minerals from Terran mechanic) poses a different problem. As valuable as gas is, Terrans don't need anything but a small amount for Marines and Hellions. Gas to buy a couple of buildings and a small number of upgrades. They could probably get that off of a single geyser. Which means that a Terran now has the resources to power lots of Barrackses with Reactors. That means lots of Marines. The Protoss's counters for mass units don't really show up until the very bottom of the tree (Colossi/HTs); they could easily get steamrolled just from gasless Terrans with proper Mule/etc use.


Thats a whole lot of speculation. For one your saying the protoss would be steamrolled. Isnt that ignoring that protoss has more gas so they can field more high gas units. You know like colossi.


Besides increased terran minerals is how the mechanic currently works. I for one am looking forward to reactor pumping massive balls of death.

Once again it all comes down to balance fears. If thats the only problem people can find with this idea...well then im feeling alot better about this idea :D



Yeah, let's look at that history.

This history includes SC1. Where the balance between races collapsed to such a degree that 2/3rds of the Terran matches involved the same units used in the same way.


Its already established that You and I have differing ideas on whether or not starcraft is "balanced". For me racial matchups that involve clearly defined unit profiles does not count as imbalanced. It helps refine gameplay to make it more tightly balanced.

Gifted
12-16-2009, 10:40 AM
I want to state this in clear nonjudgemental langauge so people dont consider it inconsiderate.

1) I never claimed that all gas mechanics were completly and solely my intellectual proprety. Also im not saying Blizzard IS putting a gas mechanic in the game. Im saying Blizzard is interested in a thread on BNET about protoss gas mechanics (which they said as much). Furthermore I havnt even mentioned one of my gas mechanic ideas in this thread so im confused why you would think Id "claim the idea as your own".

2) Master Theorycrafter is a running joke from a couple posts back.

3) Im trying to spur intellectual discussion on a topic Blizzard has expressed interest in (some thing you have done in the past with roach threads I believe)

4) I appreciate that your just trying to help me be less focused on how people percieve me. All I can offer is that the intent of my statements was in no way focused on how people percieve me. Which brings us to the real point of the post which was,

5) I want people to recognize a pattern in what they initially think is imbalanced and what actually turns out to be imbalanced. Many people claimed that race specific macro would be imbalanced. So far Blizzard has not once said this is a concern.

6) Thats what I want to people to realize. In the past I (and some others) have looked past what initially seems unbalanced and said "hey there is some interesting gameplay here, this might work". We dont let thoughts like "oh it will be different from the other races and there fore it cant be balanced" stand in the way of creative exploration.Thanks for reply, I hope you took my thoughts in an objective light too, your post suggests as such ^_^.

1. While it's true that you didn't state that, the fact is how it was presented (You being rewarded if the idea came to light) can be perceived as such. In terms of communication, it's the perception of those who receive that matters more than the intent of the portrayer. Still, point granted and if people read that they would have a clearer perception of what you mean. :)

2. Didn't know that *winks*

3. I understood that, and as stated in the first part of my post (which you didn't quote) I even stated it was my opinion... though not clearly. I'm not suggesting to close this thread.. just merely stating that my thoughts differ from yours.

4. S'all good :)

5. I can see the points relating to macro mechanics themselves. While it's my opinion that the gas mechanic won't go far due to game design circulations, (Point A leads to B to C to D to E... which involves a potential resolution on A to work) I still feel that conversations regarding the situation could provide fruitful discussion that could help something else in the game's changes.. be it related or not.

6. I'm guessing that your reply here was more general and not at me. As I suggested in my first post on page two.. I think that this conversation could bear some interesting fruit... I just don't see much progress on a gas mechanic itself due to some fundamental game design issues I personally perceive. *shrugs* My opinion at least, doesn't make it factual. ;)

Norfindel
12-16-2009, 11:03 AM
No idea if that's workable. Minerals are much more important early game, and you need a lot of them.

Gas is not needed in the same proportion. Most units cost more minerals than gas.

The Zerg have increased unit production, including workers, which in turn increase minerals.

.