Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 41

Thread: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

  1. #31

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Aldrius View Post
    How is it dumb exactly...? It's unique. Completely different, and very purposeful.

    Ya it's unique like the vulture. You know... The unit that was good at nothing after dropping 3 mines. Players, have much more stuff to do than "resupply" units that could die 3 seconds later. There is a reason why only the Reaver and Carrier had resupply fee. Because it was meant to cost alot due to their overpowerness.

    Putting a cost on D8 charges = No more Reapers used.
    Putting a cost on Snipe = No more ghost used.

    And in the end, what is the "mechanic problem" behind the energy on terran? I don't think Reapers and other non-psi-users have energy else than Ships. But then ships like raven and battlecruisers don't use psi powers. It's real battery generated energy. That is completly fine like it is.

  2. #32

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    great idea.

    blizzard should have thought about this 10 years ago.

    for example the ghost should only have 11 sniper rounds at hand. when there is none left the ghost can refill it back in the baracks or ghost academy. Same for the emp battery its quite heavy.

    imagine the vulture in can reload its spider mine in the factory. kinda imba but fun.

  3. #33

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bisso View Post
    Putting a cost on D8 charges = No more Reapers used.
    Putting a cost on Snipe = No more ghost used.
    And putting a cost on Repair = No more SCV's used....

    The act of placing a cost on an ability does not immediately mean it's useless. Whether it's energy, time, minerals or gas, they're all still costs. It's balancing it right that matters. For instance, if D-8 Charges cost 5 minerals a pop, dropping 10 into a worker line is economically sound.

    As for any 'problems' with the energy and cooldown mechanics, there isn't. The point of the OP's suggestion was to create greater racial diversity.

  4. #34

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
    The Terrans are already the most micro-heavy race. Almost every unit has a special activated ability. Adding this on top of that doesn't help.

    Ammo makes more sense for the Protoss.
    "rechargeable" ammos WAS a Protoss mechanism (2 units had them). In SC2 they eliminate such micro mechanism.

    I'd prefer Terran strongest abilities (D-mines, Raven's abilities) had just a set number of ammo. Remember the old mines in SC1? Vultures were build (thanks to an upgrade) with 3 mines. This was strong but at the same time prevent spamming the entire map with mines unless you built more units.
    And they weren't able to recharge ammo.

    This way there wouldn't be more micro, simply some more though decisions. Limited resources make strategic decisions more important.

    I mean if you have a gun with 3 bullets and 4 enemies I suppose you don't shot the same target 3 times if you can take down 3 of them.

    I'd prefer Ghost just the way it is (energy abilities) just because it has some lore-based psichic abilities.
    Last edited by blackholexan; 07-15-2009 at 10:35 AM.

  5. #35

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    And in the end, what is the "mechanic problem" behind the energy on terran? I don't think Reapers and other non-psi-users have energy else than Ships. But then ships like raven and battlecruisers don't use psi powers. It's real battery generated energy. That is completly fine like it is.
    There is no mechanic problem, it'd just be for some more racial diversity.

    As I said in my mind, the Terran casters should go:

    Orbital Command: Energy, fine.
    Reaper: Cooldown, fine.
    Ghost: Energy for Cloak, Cooldown for Snipe, Nuke Silos for EMP Missile and Nuke. (You chose at each shadow ops building. EMP obviously being cheaper, built faster, and used faster)
    Banshee: Energy for Cloak, fine.
    Med-evac Dropship: Energy for Heal, fine.
    Raven: Minerals and cooldowns for constructs (like an SCV but instantaneous construction). Maybe energy for all other abilities. (Though personally I think the Raven should have nothing but constructs.)
    Battlecruiser: Cooldown for abilities. (In my opinion.)

    But that's all just my opinion.

    You're paying for the turrets with energy, that's the cost. There's a difference between costing minerals and costing energy.
    Um what? When did I suggest that the Raven should have both...? I'm not agreeing with Blazur's suggestion, I'm just discussing Terran caster-use.

    The Raven, in my opinion, should have all his abilities cost minerals IN place of energy (i.e. the Raven should have no energy, though, yes that does cause problems in TvT with EMP) And to make them not spammable, give them all short, fair cooldowns. And no loading capacity, just pay minerals whenever you use the ability and make a construct. (By the way I hate HSM)

    I think that'd make the Raven more of a construction vehicle, using resources to build up some defensive infrastructure rather than just energy like every other caster in the game.

  6. #36
    Pandonetho's Avatar SC:L Addict
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,214

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    They did have it at one point, where the turret dropping costed minerals.

    I think during that time they changed it to cost minerals because of the end game where the Terran would have the advantage when there was no money left on the map.

  7. #37

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    IMO, everything that is permanent and has an attack should cost resources. If it does only cost energy, given enough time, a Terran player can spam the small turrets everywhere, not to mention the problems that would arise when the Terran player has a Protoss player as ally. Obelisks recharging the energy of the Raven can really improve their ability to spam turrets.

    If they cost only energy, i think that they should have limited life span.
    Last edited by Norfindel; 07-15-2009 at 12:46 PM.

  8. #38

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    Remember the old mines in SC1? Vultures were build (thanks to an upgrade) with 3 mines. This was strong but at the same time prevent spamming the entire map with mines unless you built more units.
    Spider mines are about a thousand times better than D8 charges. In order to make D8 charges actually worthwhile with limited ammo, they have to make them much, much more powerful.

    Also, Vultures don't cost gas; Reapers do.
    "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." - C. S. Lewis

    "You simply cannot design a mechanic today to mimic the behaviour of a 10-year old mechanic that you removed because nearly nobody would like them today." - Norfindel, on the Macro Mechanics

    "We want to focus the player on making interesting choices and not just a bunch of different klicks." - Dustin Browder

    StarCraft 2 Beta Blog

  9. #39

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas View Post
    Also, Vultures don't cost gas; Reapers do.
    Good point

  10. #40

    Default Re: Further distinction for Terrans: Munitions instead of energy

    I can support abilities on units costing resources, like Raven Auto-Turrets and Carrier Interceptors, as long as they are built in the field.

    In no way would I ever support requiring a unit to return to base to restock.

Similar Threads

  1. Are there Terrans on Shakuras?
    By mr. peasant in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 12:08 AM
  2. [Idea] Energy Competitor for Dark Pylon
    By mr. peasant in forum StarCraft Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-10-2009, 02:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •