More variety in buildings

I don't want to sound too negative but I don't really like most of those ideas. Sounds to me like you just threw some random thoughts in there without thinking it through. You cant add random stuff into the game just because it will add a bit to the strategic diversity. If you want to add new content then this content must have some kind of important effect on the gameplay. It must seriously change how the game is played, otherwise its just more clutter.

1. Like those aerial buildings. Why have aerial buildings? Will that significantly change how Protoss or Zerg build their bases? So what if zerglings and zealots can't attack the spire / stargate? Will that make any major changes to the Zerg / Protoss strategy?

2. Also why have a submergable turret? What would that change? When you attack a Terran base you prolly don't know how many turrets there are in the first place. And so what if you can't see the turrets? When they start shooting you will simply turn back if there is too many. I dont think anyone will just send his harass shuttles without scouting first.

3. Invisible buildings? Protoss already have invisible buildings (star relic or mothership can cloak buildings).

6. More variety in defensive structure's attack would mean more different defense structures, each with its specific attack. And I dont think anyone here wants more defense structures.

7. -some zerg buildings that damage or slow melee units that attack it - why make a building that is particulary effective against melee units? There are only 4 melee units in the game. And Terrans use almost only ranged troops.
-buildings that can "transform" like vikings and provide a different function / buildings that can merge together - terrans already have something similar to this with their addons merging / combining with barracks and factories
-buildings that cause a explosion when destroyed (e.g. nuke silo) - why would you build a potential bomb inside your base for enemy to destroy? If the explosion is of small radius then it would only damage melee units which is, again, unfair to some races.

One idea I do like is buildings that turn into units and vice versa. Unfortunately, Blizzard already did some thing similar to this with the flying starport and they decided to remove it. Im not decided on the idea of buildings with abilities, something like that could seriously affect the gameplay but it could also just end up being clutter (like that shield battery). Usualy people dont have the time to worry about the abilities of buildings next to all those units.

 

you seriously don't read properly

try comprehend what i am saying before answering. what do you think the phrase "if you say" means? it means a hypothetical situation in which you say that there's no significant gameplay change so we shouldn't have it, to which i replied, using the zerg regen example, that there are already many mechanics in the game that makes no signiface to gameplay changes, if the zergs had no regen, they would still play the same way, they won't suddenly go defensive or agressive or change anything. everything up to now is in the hypothetical situation is which you made that statement.

now i said:

now you tell me if i "admitted" aerial building would make no significant changes.

_________________________________________________

did you seriously read that properly? or it's simply the case that you can't understand anything i say? i have never said we should remove zerg regen, remember i am the one who want to have all these "useless mechanics that doesn't change game play" and "all that clutter" and you are the one who didn't want it. so i clearly want regen. now you don't want clutter and regen is one such "clutter" so it was a simply question see what you think about the prospects of removing it, clearly you are opposed to it with your sarcasm and all. so why do you support not adding more "clutter" when there are already "clutter" so important that you are even using sarcasm to express your disgust when it is suggested that it should be removed?

_________________________________________________

why do you insist on picking on the missile turrent? how many time do i have to tell you that it is only an example? it is Submergable buildings that's the main talking point not Submergable missile turrets. you seem to think that the two are the same and constantly refers to how you would counter submergible turrent when it is only an example. saying what you would do and how you would counter it does not mean it's not useful, everying can be countered otherwise that thing would be OP, so what do you think if i told you: well i would use air units to attack cliff jumpers so it doesn't matter if they jump up or down as i can still attack them, therefore cliff jumping is really not needed, it's just clutter

_________________________________________________

seriously dude, read it again:

if you still don't understand then... well if you are gonna shout... AT THE TIME I SUGGESTED THIS IDEA I DID NOT KNOW THAT THE PROTOSS HAD INVISIBLE BUILDINGS. your first post was referring directly to the post i made in august. telling me that protoss already had this and that, when i didn't know about it. why do feel the shout it out loud as if i still don't know? after all this argument you have yet to express your opinion on the subject, all you have done is trying to shout at the me 2 month ago that they already have cloaked buildings, well i can't go back in time to stop myself from posting this can i? so what's the use with all the shouting? if you think it's a bad idea go tell blizzard. they are the ones who decided to implement it. which actually made my suggestion come true, so clearly blizzard think cloakable buildings is good to have.

_________________________________________________

you think an ability that affect 4 types of unit is low? there are 3 units in sc1 that did not trigger the spider mine, why do they have that ability? it's only useful against one unit, and not even a proper one. it's all clutter...

_________________________________________________

i have already said you have a point on this one, why do you feel the need to repeat yourself?

_________________________________________________

did i ever mention the explosion will have the equivalent power of the nuke? so you just assumed that, about your "why would you build a potential bomb inside your base for enemy to destroy" comment i have already answered regarding this point, yet you keep saying the same thing, so i'll anwer it again, the simple answer: becuase they want to use nukes, the long answer:

_________________________________________________

i'm sorry but i am disappointed by your reply, you've mostly just repeated what you said in your first post instead of addressing what i said in my reply to that post. you have also not read my replies properly. resulting in illogical arguments...

BUT MOST OF ALL A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE UNHAPPY ABOUT ARE JUST EXAMPLES OF PARTICULAR MECHANICS, THE MECHANICS THEMSELVES ARE MAIN TALKING POINT, NOT EXAMPLES. IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU CAN SUGGEST BETTER EXAMPLES BY ALL MEANS FEEL FREE TO SUGGEST THEM.

 

1."personally i believe aerial buildings will affect the game play much more significantly than regeneration. for one thing all ground attacks wouldn't be able to damage them. trying to take out a key tech building with a tank drop? well tough luck your tanks can't hit it cos it's in the air."
I dont see them changing the gameplay at all. People dont try to take out key tech buildings with tank drops. But if they did, I guess they could use goliaths instead. So instead of loading tanks into dropships, I would load goliaths or marines. Yes, a very significat change. Also, I dont know if you ever played the Terran race before, but their buildings have this cool ability called lift off. Now, this ability, which is frightingly similar to your suggestion, can make the Terran buildings fly. Yet, the fact that Terran buildings can fly when attacked never affected the strategy of Terran opponents to a significant degree. You would just add a few hydras, goons or goliaths to your army and the flying buildings are no problem.

"i replied, using the zerg regen example, that there are already many mechanics in the game that makes no signiface to gameplay changes"
Zerg regeneration is not a significant gameplay change? Are you absolutely sure about that? That statement is so ridiculous I don't even want to get into it, so I'll just say its a bad example. There are very few insignificant gameplay features in SC. And the last time I checked Blizzard is trying to remove or rework all the insignificant features and leave only the useful ones.

2. So if you aren't going to submerege your defense buildings, what are you going to submerge? Keeping in mind this is a Terran specific mechanic since the races need to be unique. Most terran buildings can fly so it makes no sense for them to underground. Depos submerge so that you can block enterances. What other Terran building should submerge in order to significantly affect gameplay?


3."THERE ARE ALREADY INVISIBLE BUILDINGS IN THE GAME."
"AT THE TIME I SUGGESTED THIS IDEA I DID NOT KNOW THAT THE PROTOSS HAD INVISIBLE BUILDINGS." I dont care what you knew or didnt know. The fact is that invisible buildings are already in the game so your suggestion is POINTLESS.

7. "-some zerg buildings that damage or slow melee units that attack it - why make a building that is particulary effective against melee units? There are only 4 melee units in the game."
"you think an ability that affect 4 types of unit is low? there are 3 units in sc1 that did not trigger the spider mine, why do they have that ability? it's only useful against one unit"
Yes, its a marginally useful ability. But it is needed to balance vultures. Fortunately, no more such minor, near useless abilities are needed to balance the game. So unless you plan to introduce this feature as a radical way of balancing melee units vs zerg, I see no point in adding it because of its very limited use.

"-buildings that cause a explosion when destroyed (e.g. nuke silo) - why would you build a potential bomb inside your base for enemy to destroy?"
"did i ever mention the explosion will have the equivalent power of the nuke?"
In that case it would be dangerous only to melee units. Again, why? How would that seriously change the gameplay?

"i'm sorry but i am disappointed by your reply, you've mostly just repeated what you said in your first post"
Which is pretty much what I did now. Maybe this time you'll actually comprehend it.

 

you've basically said the same things again, you clearly haven't got the grasp of anything.

you still think regen is useful when it take 10 minutes to fully regen a unit
you are still trying to tell me not to post the cloak building idea 2 month ago
you have no concept of what make things balance

you are basically just repeating yourself, have a good day

 

"you've basically said the same things again, you clearly haven't got the grasp of anything."
You apparently haven't read the same things again, you clearly haven't got the grasp of anything.

"you are still trying to tell me not to post the cloak building idea 2 month ago"
You admitted yourself that this feature is in the game so there is no point in keeping it on the suggestion list, is there? How was I wrong to point this out? You started the topic so you should keep it up to date.

"you still think regen is useful when it take 10 minutes to fully regen a unit"
Ask around. Without it Zerg buildings don't get rapired, units heal 25% hp in average between battles. I can't believe I have to explain this.

If my logic is so faulty then why don't you make a convincing argument? I mean, after planning these suggestions for so long you should be able to justify their implementation.

 

dude your logic is totally screwed up, at the time i suggested the cloak building idea, the new protoss cloaking field ability wasn't even revealed, otherwise wouldn't you think the people who wrote the first few replies would have pointed out? if you suggested the cliff climbing mechanic before it was revealed then blizzards reveals that they are going to implement such a mechanic people would say "cool this idea actually got implemente" instead of screaming their heads off like you saying that the idea is already in the game.

zergs heal 25% between battles? where did you pull that state out? i don't make convincing arguments? it's sure better than someone who just repeat his arguments that have already been countered instead addressing the counter argument, in my reply i have addressed every single one of your arguments, you haven't answered half of mine, all you do is repeat yourself, that's why there's no point arguing with you. have a good day.

 

Thats like, the third time you wrote my logic is flawed / you didn't know toss had clocked buildings / zerg regeneration is useless (pardon, insignificant) / theres no point in arguing with me / i repeat myself etc.

Again I ask you: if you now know that protoss have clocked buildings then why don't you remove suggestion no.3 from your list?
Just for the record, Im not gonna discuss the significance of zerg regeneration with you, so if you don't believe me just ask someone who knows how to play that race before you embarrass yourself further because saying zerg regen is useless is a pretty noobish statement.

 

you got it wrong mate saying zerg regen is game useful is a noobish statement.

ps lol why should i remove the suggestion just because it has been implemented? that's why your logic is screwed...

 

Because its not a suggestion anymore if it is already in the game. Hows that for logic?

 

so everyone who has ever suggested ideas that actually got implemented should all delete/correct theirs posts?

i have seem many ideas suggested in the past year or so implemented, including cliff climber and drop pods

 

If there is a discussion going on in that topic and their post is the starting post, then yeah.

Astonishing piece of info. I bet you where there when they suggested someone should make SC2.

 

cliff jumping,

http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?p=82902

_________________________________________________

drop-pod, there are even closer matches to the current drop pod, but since the old battlenet/starcraft2 section of the forum has been cleared out, a lot of these suggestions can't be found again.

http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=19&page=16


just because you lack knowledge doesn't warrant you to be rude mate...

 

I believed youve read those posts, I just thought it was lame of you to brag about it. Now that you have made a whole post about it and went trough all the trouble to find those quotes, I think it qualifies for a good rofl.

 

sure you believed me, you just can't use sarcasm properly :

 

dude, I play zerg alot and even I know the regeneration is pretty useless. It doesn't help in battle and buildings take 30 min-1 hour to fully heal after almost being destroyed. The terran SCV can heal buildings in a minute or 2, hows that for fair?

Oh and your idea of 25% regeneration between battles is completely wrong at best. My units gain maye 4-5 life out of 50-80 (less than 10%) after defending my base before another wave of attackers arrives, alowing them to life through one more bullet if lucky.

So, the regeneration rate needs to increase for it to be of any use whatsoever.

 

or maybe zerg just need a special unit with double regen. maybe the new ultra should have that as a upgrade?

 

that wold also work, but I think the idea of Creep raising regen rate sounds more realistic

 

yes, but it will still just make regen "slightly more usefull"... It will help recovering after battles a little faster with increased speed and all, but i am talking about a special unit that you need to hunt down and kill so that it cant run away and regen to full health again with its even crazier regen speed.

 

Just for the record: in SC1 zerg units regenerate about 22 hp per minute.

 

Where'd you see that?

I use zerg a lot and it definately feel longer than that when healing my zerglings life by half