Unit ranks

I'm wondering what do you people think about a ranking system in starcraft2, i heard that the devs well actually considering to implement it, but in the end abandoned it.
I'm talking about the C&C type ranking system, where a units after x kills of y worth units gets stronger, for those of you whondering, it worked well in that game.
Starcraft alredy shows how many kills each unit has, so it would posibble not be so strange to implement it. Didn't you ever think that when a unit has more than 10 kills it could change a bit(mannzealots:P).



So what do you think, would this be a bad feature for starcraft, would it change gameplay to much, or could it work :p ?


I found this screenshot, i think it shows ranks? :

http://www.sc2armory.com/files/screenshots/42_hr.jpg

Bad idea.
Terrible.

Would never implement it for core multiplayer.

Go ahead for singleplayer and UMS.

to be honest, I didn't like the feature that much in C&C. Sure, it was fun to have a hero veteran tank walk through an army, but it wasn't necessarily all that strategic, since most of it was just through luck that you would get a veteran unit (since it was mostly mass+attack), with the exception of commandos.

With SC2, I feel like certain units, like the siege tank and capital ships, would be most likely to rank up, and thus become too powerful for the mechanics of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

Go ahead for singleplayer and UMS.

---

agreed

I wouldn't be surprised about this being a spinoff of the hero technology in the editor.

I also think that in the screenshot, if it isn't the ranking system, it's an indicator to the player of which ghost is dropping the nuke.

The only veterancy mechanic I ever liked, was the one they used for the USA faction in 'Generals' - when a vehicle was destroyed, you had a short window where you could move the surviving pilot/driver to a new vehicle, and transfer the veterancy to that vehicle. Even then, in large skirmishes, it was almost impossible to keep track of this - in many cases, you were just better off microing your existing units. -

In regards to SC however, it's such a signature C&C mechanic...I cant really see it making the jump.




.

Isn't this a horribly old screenshot?

We know that they once upon a time had unit ranking for terrans, but that's was just experimenting. They dropped it rather fast.

The most interesting thing about the whole deal, was actually the crusade alot of fans started versus Dustin Browder for "bringing his C&C nonsense into StarCraft". :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

Go ahead for singleplayer and UMS.

---

I, too, agree with this, and I think they will include it since they've talked about hero levels and things like that for UMS.

Here's why the idea is bad - it leads to the player who wins some early fights being able to get a bigger advantage over the other. It also, as others have pointed out, makes certain unit types disproportionately more powerful: a veteran tank will happen much more often than a veteran Zergling, say. By that same logic, veterancy will be much more powerful against certain units - you can kill swarms of Zerg, but it'll take longer to rank up against Protoss.

That said, I'll bet that there are ways to make it balanced if you wanted to do this on a UMS map. The units that rank-up easily would get a much smaller bonus, while units that are harder to level would get a more dramatic boost. So a veteran tank might only get a +2 to damage or something, while a veteran Zergling might double it's stats.

Not a fan of it. Too lazy to justify my reasonings, but something about it I simply don't like.

Singleplayer? Meh...sure, why not?

Veterancy was in SC2 multiplayer for about 5 minutes. That screenshot is 2 years old.

/thread

I don't see any issue with it added a bit of text to the unit's description information like - "Rookie" "Veteran" etc based on the total damage it's dealt/recieved, and/or number of kills. As long as it's just for the purpose of seeing how many kills a single unit has / how long they're been on the battlefield. It would actually be kinda cool, and give a little bit of uniqueness to each unit. But I'm against it having any stat altering effects. Purely cosmetic, basically a more advanced kill counter.


X :cool:

I think cosmetic veterancy would be awesome.

Say a marine would have less colour and more grime/scratches/damage on his armour.

Zerg wouldn't really have veteracny though, but that's completely fine if it's purely aesthetic because one race or two having aesthetic veterancy doesn't affect anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Veterancy was in SC2 multiplayer for about 5 minutes. That screenshot is 2 years old.

/thread

---

Then I hope they use it in the Campaign!! A way better system than "random hero" from StarCraft1.

Just imagine how powerful it could become to just try to save your good units in the campaign to see your Hydralisk become a Hunter Killer 2-3 missions later. That would be VERRRYYYY nice.

I used to save the good units all game just for the fear of losing them, now if you want them to be powerful, you need to fight with them and you need to fight well! (That implies to start microing in campaign). I think this could be really good in campaign. RLY! :D

I wouldn't to be averse to this for a specific unit. Something that underperforms for its cost initially, but can overperform if it kills a lot of stuff. It'd make for an interesting special ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I wouldn't to be averse to this for a specific unit. Something that underperforms for its cost initially, but can overperform if it kills a lot of stuff. It'd make for an interesting special ability.

---

http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/up...007/06/sh1.jpg

Never again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

I wouldn't to be averse to this for a specific unit. Something that underperforms for its cost initially, but can overperform if it kills a lot of stuff. It'd make for an interesting special ability.

---

Hey....thats pretty good actually. - Sounds like it could work for DTs......get a few 'skulls' under the belt before they can do some real damage. :)

Maybe even just apply this idea towards an ability....for instance, a certain number of successful 'snipes' for a particular Ghost could translate into reduced energy usage...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/up...007/06/sh1.jpg

Never again.

---

In fairness, the complaint there was the horrible unit model and name - (and that the unit upgraded far too quickly) - I think the idea behind the weapon was still solid.


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/up...007/06/sh1.jpg

Never again.

---

http://i27.tinypic.com/2uhthj6.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caliban113

In fairness, the complaint there was the horrible unit model and name - (and that the unit upgraded far too quickly) - I think the idea behind the weapon was still solid.

---

Maybe your complaint was the horrible unit model and name. Mine was most definitely that veterancy has NO PLACE in SC2 multiplayer. The balancing alone would delay the game even further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

I think cosmetic veterancy would be awesome.

Say a marine would have less colour and more grime/scratches/damage on his armour.

Zerg wouldn't really have veteracny though, but that's completely fine if it's purely aesthetic because one race or two having aesthetic veterancy doesn't affect anything.

---

That's actually kinda funny in regards to Zerg, cause my friend and I used to see how many kills we could rack up on one Zergling during the single player missions. Even if it's only displayed on the unit's stat block, and doesn't affect the texturing, I'd still say that it's valid for all 3 races. Zerg could get more bloody or something, if it's got a small cosmetic change.


X :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

Maybe your complaint was the horrible unit model and name. Mine was most definitely that veterancy has NO PLACE in SC2 multiplayer. The balancing alone would delay the game even further.

---

Lots of people's complaint back then was the model and name - There was little, if anything, about the weapon upgrade mechanic. (Which always had the potential of getting tweaked) In fact, I pretty much remember you having a say about this on the ol' BlizzForums; I went to look, but unfortunately they only go back 5000 posts... :)

Anyway, we're not talking about 'classic' C&C interpretation of veterancy, or even one for all units (Which I'm also against) just an upgrade for one unit or unit ability based upon that units kills. The balancing for that wouldn't be that terrible IMO.




.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caliban113

Lots of people's complaint back then was the model and name - There was little, if anything, about the weapon upgrade mechanic. (Which always had the potential of getting tweaked) In fact, I pretty much remember you having a say about this on the ol' BlizzForums; I went to look, but unfortunately they only go back 5000 posts... :)

Anyway, we're not talking about 'classic' C&C interpretation of veterancy, or even one for all units (Which I'm also against) just an upgrade (for one unit or unit ability) of some type based upon that units kills. the balancing for that wouldn't be that terrible IMO.

---

It goes far beyond the balancing, but its a big part. Veterancy is either meaningless or overpowered. If the veterancy bonuses are too small, they won't be used and the mechanic is just taking up memory. If the bonus is too big, units with it will be micro-ed and saved and we'll end up with the "small but powerful army" gameplay of WC3, which is what we want to avoid.

The whole thing is just pointless.

porridge is too hot, porridge is too cold...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

porridge is too hot, porridge is too cold...

---

I'm glad you're finally starting to understand, Goldilocks.

Just giving you a hard time ;)

Pessimistic approaches to balance aside. Unit ranking does place increased emphasis on longevity in a game where units are supposed to be (relatively) short lived.

Ranked units + micro = pain in the ass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

I'm glad you're finally starting to understand, Goldilocks.

---

LMAO!!
I swear if we had rep, I'd +1 this.

I always thought the Archon would make a good model for a system like that. Use already-tough units and allow them to grow slightly stronger based on the number of kills they have (to a limit).

It could do more damage, grow a larger AOE, have a chain-lightning-type attack, whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gritten

LMAO!!
I swear if we had rep, I'd +1 this.

---

Don´t encourage him he is bad enough on his own already.

Rank was at one point in SC's development, the original one. Zerg were planned to start out at a base amount of HP, and gain more max HP over time, so a Hydra would start out at say 120 HP and over time it would mature to 130 HP. You could also pop eggs prematurely, and I think that's how you got Zerglings.

And there had to be a reason why every unit has a kill counter on them. My guess is the kill counter was part of a bigger feature (ie Veterancy) that was taken out.

Yeah I remember that; Zerg were supposed to "age," and get a little tougher as they got older, and could also be spawned prematurely with reduced stats.

It was a neat idea, but I think it lead to too much rushing.