SC2 concerns and issues (possible inclusion in monthly report to Blizzard)

The administrative staff is expected to submit a monthly report to Blizzard outlinging fan concerns and feedback, and what people on a fansite think, things like that.  I originally posted this in the Hyperion to get some opinions so we can decide on what is to be included in the monthly report to be submitted to Blizzard.  But it was suggested that I post it in the general forums as well, so we might possibly get some discussions going on the issues raised.  It would also be helpful to guage how everyone on this site feels about the issues brought up here.

Here are the issues and concerns I have regarding SC2, as well as some suggestions and ideas.  I tried to keep it mostly just issues and concerns, the ones I can think of anyway.  If I start going into ideas that I have, this will get too crazy.  I copy-pasted some of the stuff that I've already touched on that isn't too scattered in numerous posts.  Please feel free to provide feedback, it is encouraged.  It will help us understand what the popular view on the forum is.  Anyway, here are the stuff that's on my mind.

Mothership

I've already put my fingers to way too much work just for the MS, so I won't say anymore here.  But I wan't it to be back as a super unit.  And while I'm thinking about stupid BlizzCon changes, please do something about that stupid stasis orb.  Get rid of it and bring back star relic.

Thor

I think the thor is too similar to the siege tank, redundant and overlapping in function.  As it is right now, I see little reason why Terran players would get the thor over more siege tanks in its place.  The 250mm also seem rather unimpressive.  The only way it differs from siege tank fire is that it is a bit like "attack ground" that the Warcraft siege units have(had?).  But since it is energy based, and thor would be scarce to begin with, it's kind of pointless.  Not to mention the thor is a prime target for EMP and feedback.  So you are bascially back to a super slow fat siege tank that you don't really want to get.

The issue brought up by Jon with the thor's inability to get its fat ass off of a remote island is also a concern that I share.  I support the lift-off idea, if it is limited to being just like any other Terran unit during lift-off movement, I don't see why it would be a problem.  And it certainly makes no sense for a Terran player to be given a way to easily build one on an island but be given no way to get it off.  Why should a player ever have to kill off his own unit, and a hugely expensive tier 3 one at that?

Salvage

Salvage should not return 100% of the resource cost.  Part of the multiplayer gameplay and strategy are built on the fact that players are committed to what they build.  You can counter someone because what you've scouted is what they have, if they can undo everything they did without suffering any penalties, it takes away from the strategy.  I believe making salvage 100% return would be problematic down the road as Terran players would no longer have to worry about any consequence that come from what they build.  They can just un-build it anytime.

Rushing is a legitimate part of the game because as much as it can net you a quick win, it can cost you the game if you fail.  The risk and reward is balanced.  But failed rushes are devestating not only because you lose the units you sent to attack, but because to rush, you commit yourself to the build necessary for it.  You give up a build order that is better in other ways to allow you to rush at a certain timing.  But with salvage, a Terran can hard tech a particular build, then turn around get all their money back and go on a different build.  A player who hard teched merc haven to harass you with reapers shouldn't be able to get that money back to put into bunkers to defend against your counter offensive.  Not the best example, but you get the point.  I think that not only would it be an unfair advantage, it also goes against how SC is designed and played.

Cobra

The cobra's movement speed is too slow right now, it's so slow that it makes the move-and-shoot mechanic rather pointless.  But the move-and-shoot in conjunction with increased ground speed wouldn't really make sense as a mechanic for an anti-"armored" unit.  Most armored units are higher tech with ranged attacks, the move-and-shoot for fast ground speed wouldn't make much sense or be very useful in that case.  A ranged unit with enhanced mobility, whether it's move-and-shoot or fast ground speed, would be more effective against basic infantry units because of that exact design.  The role and mechanics of the cobra should be reevaluated.  Even with anti-air in mind, the cobra doesn't seem to be really needed as a Terran unit.

I think for the cobra to be designated as anti-infantry in the same way as the SC1 vulture, it comes too late on the tech tree.  The viking ground form actually takes the vulture spot based on position on the tech tree, and the reaper takes over fast base raiding hit-and-run harassment completely.  Instead, I suggest boosting the cobra's base attack damage a bit but make it deal equal damage vs everything(no bonuses), making it an all-around unit(sort of a first for Terran).  I also think that its movement speed should be increased just a tad from what it is now, and its move-and-shoot mechanic will allow it to fare well enough against infantry if the situation demands it.

I think the most important thing is for Blizzard to abandon the hard set role of anti-armor that they have for the cobra, as armored units countering the cobra is more natural, makes more sense, and easier to incoporate to work with everything else.  Armored units generally have ranged attacks and higher damage per hit instead of weak damage paired with fast attack speed, and it naturally counters a unit like cobra that has enhanced mobility.

Terran anti-infantry

I also would like to see the reaper regain the flamethrower attack.  I think perhaps it was scratched due to balance reasons, because I can see how it could make the reaper too good and very hard to counter at that tech level.  But I think it could still work if the flamethower attack is a tier 2(factory) upgrade.  And instead of concussive damage(which sucks against anything other than small), just make it a slight damage bonus vs infantry plus splash.  That way the reaper could provide anti-infantry at early tier 2(compared to firebat's late tier 1) but still keep its effectiveness vs the immortal.  The only thing would then be to balance attack damage vs attack speed.

While I don't feel that the reaper flamethrower attack is absolutely necessary, I do feel that out of the reaper and the viking ground form, one of them needs have a stronger anti-infantry focus.  It could be the reaper with flamethrower attack(replacing the firebat at just slightly higher/later tech) or the viking with a stronger anti-infantry attack in ground form, but some form of specific anti-infantry needs to be available for Terran at the factory tech level(early tier 2, cobra is too late).

Attack/armor system, mutalisk effectiveness due to armor class

Being primarily a Zerg user, one of my primary concerns in regards to the armor system, is the mutalisk. The muta was one of the only two combat air units classified as small(the other being the scourge). Being a small unit, the SC1 mutalisk was a bit more resilient than its deceivingly flimsy appearance, due to receiving only 50% damage from a great many things that hit air.

The anti-air attack of the more prevalent units in SC1 all deal explosive damage. This includes all three Broodwar added air superiority support units, the air attack of the tactical air units(muta itself being the exception), and the ranged ground units often used as ground based AA(hydra, goon, goliath). So from things that mattered and are most often used against the muta, the muta took only 50% damage. My question is then, will the mutalisk carry this benefit and defining trait over to SC2? If not, I see it as a rather big change(nerf) for the muta, as I certainly would not expect the devs to double the muta's HP pool to compensate.

Splash damage vs unit armor

Another question I have is splash/bounce attack vs armor. In SC1, the low damage of the splash from the corsair and valkyrie's(per rocket) attack, and the mutalisk's secondary bounce attack(glaive wurm), lost effectiveness against unit armor at a steep rate. This design made the AA support air units ineffective against capital ships. But at the same time, it made armor upgrade almost always the better choice over attack upgrade, at least for air. This is most evident in Zerg, as two Zerg players playing against each other both using mutas will both go for armor upgrades. It made that aspect of SC very stagnant IMO, as there was no grounds for strategic macro when it came to air attack upgrade vs air armor upgrade.

It is true that this mainly pertains to corsair, valkyrie, and mutalisk, two of which do not seem to be making a return from what we've seen so far. And I believe so far, there is no air unit in SC2 that has a splashing air attack, with the exception of the mutalisk's bounce attack. But if the banshee's attack behaves similarly to that of the valkyrie, in that the damage of each missile is calculated separately, I suspect a similar outcome in the unit armor equation. I don't know if it is something the devs want to keep on purpose. But I believe perhaps it is most prudent to avoid such a design where certain unit attack/armor upgrades become "text book."

Pylon vs Cannon vs Phase Prism

I personally believe that the shield/hp/armor of pylon vs cannon in SC1 to be a design flaw.  It's like they introduced a certain gameplay element in which you can take out pylons to disable the cannons, or all other buildings for that matter, yet 99% of the times it was not strategically prudent to do so.

Pylons don't have to be easier to take out than cannons, but damn were they some tough nuts to crack.  Pylons really need to be a wee bit weaker.  Weakening pylons a bit has two advantages to SC.

First of all, it introduces a working anti Protoss strategy and adds yet more flavor to SC multiplayer.  That's what it should've been in SC1, now it'll work like it's supposed to.

Secondly, it further enhances Terran's racial identity in that it will be the only race not vulnerable to supply hunt strat, but its buildings steadily degenerate until self-destruction when HP fall in the red zone.  This will make Terran even more unique and different from P/Z.

If Blizzard hasn't already touched on it, they really should take it into consideration.  Since they are looking into making each race more unique as well as adding more strategic options in multiplayer, this will definitely help, as long as they don't overdo it.

 

High-yield gas vs high-yield mineral

The benefit of the high-yield minerals(yellow) is questionable. At the timing that players would be able to secure a high-yield mineral site to take advantage of it, the player is no longer limited by minerals. In most cases, it is vespene gas that is the limiting factor. Players often burn off excess minerals by pumping cheap mineral-only basic units when they are riding gas-heavy tech. They should take out high-yield minerals and change it to high-yield gas. It will have a realistic benefit to the player, and actually be worth putting it the effort to secure it.

Tech Lab, Terran fast tech

I have already made a thread on this topic. Bascially the concern is that with the new universal addon mechanic, Terran is essentially capable of pre-building tier 2 and tier 3 structures at tier 1. This is beneficial to the Terran in making smoother transitions to tier 2 and obtaining siege tech faster. While this isn't something bad in itself, Blizzard needs to be aware of this and make sure other races can adequately deal with Terran fast tech.

Early Terran/Protoss hit-and-run tech

What Terran and Protoss have for high mobility hit-and-run is very low on the tech tree compared to what was available in SC1. Both the stalker with blink and the reaper with jetpack are obtainable earlier than SC1's mutalisk and speed upgraded vulture. I am inclined to believe that this is part of Blizzard's design for SC2 where hit-&-run base raiding would just be earlier in the game in general. But I am still concerned as to what will the Zerg have to match this. It is either Zerg gets the shaft, or that the Zerg also will get something early on. But the latter would most likely have a huge impact on the mutalisk, and possibly in a negative way. Although I understand that it might be still too early as Zerg is yet to be revealed, I certainly think this is cause for concern.

Terran/Protoss building queue, what about Zerg?

Protoss and Terran can now queue building production, which is a great new feature. But what about the Zerg? The Zerg's fast production is offset by the fact that a drone is sacrificed for each structure that is built. Now that the efficiency of Protoss and Terran macro has been improved, something needs to be done for Zerg to compensate for it. As a Zerg player, I hate the idea that we might be getting the shaft on that one.

Disconnects in team games

In Warcraft 3, whenever a player is disconnected in a team game, the remaining players were given control of the disconnected players units and buildings while having no direct control over the disconnected player's resources. This is a not a very good system and is actually more harm than good. Not only are you left with one less player on your team, you are now overloaded with the burden of having to take over the macro and micro of another faction. In most cases, you don't even have a slim chance at winning when all players are at equal or similar skill levels.

Instead of shared unit control and no way to use the disconnected player's resources for yourself, I think the resources should be shared. Whatever amount that is in the disconnected player's resource pool(bank) should be distributed equally among the remaining players. Furthermore, any resources havested by the disconnected player's units after that point, should be divided equally and directly deposited into each of the remaining players' pools. This way the disadvantage of losing a team mate is at least offset slightly.

There would still be shared unit control over the disconnected player's units. However, whenever one of the remaining players wish to build with the disconnected player's units or buildings, the cost in resources would come out of the that player's own pockets. So everyone on the disadvantaged team would have a slightly increased resource income, but whoever wish to take advantage of the abandoned faction to build more workers for increased income, build an expansion base, produce combat units, or whatever else, would have to pay for it himself. This certainly is far from being a perfect solution, but I think it would at least work better than just shared unit control.

Medic: flare vs optic flare

I think I made mention of this in the Terran Unit Roster thread, but I think the usefulness of the medic's new flare ability is questionable. The only situation that I can think of where the flare ability might be realistically useful is when the Terran is under attack by enemy units on the high ground. But high ground units remaining under the cover of the fog of war is a new mechanic implemented for SC2, I don't think they should give the medic an ability to counter this very mechanic. Instead, I would like to see the medic regain the optic flare ability. But instead of it working like it did before and blinding units, which was largely useless, I would like to see it reduce a target unit's attack range down to 1(melee) for a specific duration, maybe 30 seconds or so. It would be much more useful all-around as well having very good tactical applications.

Terran repair: Starbase, Nomad, Dropship

I've already talked about this, but I think the usefulness and necessity of the starbase as it is right now is highly questionable. There is little reason to actually upgrade to one, as air units all have good mobility and the ability to freely cross terrain obstacles. The rearm ability that charges spell energy also seem like it doesn't really fit, not to mention it just means that your starbase will eat EMPs and feedbacks. It has been suggested that the starbase be made to repair units instead, and I think that is at least a better design than the rearm ability. Terran has always had SCVs for repair, but the starbase would be more suited to repair near the frontlines as the enemy can't just easily pick them off.

I personally don't like the nomad's nano repair ability at all. I think it is too redundant with Terran's existing repair for it to take up a spell slot of the nomad/SciVes. I also have concerns about nano repair making it very annoying to kill high HP units. The defensive matrix would already make killing high HP units like the BC and the thor a pain in the ass, but if you have multiple nomads spamming nano repair all over the battle field, I imagine it will be close to impossible. I think when you consider everything on a whole, the nano repair is more bad than it is good. I would rather see Terran repair not take the form of an instant cast spell, and the nomad get a different spell as well.

Quite a whiles back, I suggested the idea for the dropship to gradually repair mechanical units that it carries. With the Protoss getting the Phase Prism, and the Zerg overlord already multipurpose, I think this can be the Terran's flavor. But not just because of that, I think Terran can actually benefit from it. On tank drops or any other time that you deploy mechanical away from home with the dropship, you can keep them lasting longer.

Stacking of air units

I don't know what everyone else thinks about this, but I think seeing a while bunch of large tier 3 air just stack together is a bit silly. I originally made a thread about this with the idea of making air stack according to size, small air stack tightly, medium air stack more loosely, and largely air just barely stacking at the edges. The reasoning was for large air to be less susceptible to splash attacks and AoE spells than small air, but since so far I don't think there is any air unit with a splashing air attack, I guess this is now mostly a visual complaint. Not a big issue.

Shockwave(Mothership special ability idea)

Possible replacement spell for the super unit Mothership. Long range spell fired in the form of a fast projectile, upon reaching the targeted location, explodes and lets rip a powerful shockwave. Visually, you can think of it as like the EMP shockwave, missile, boom, rippling effect, the whole thing. But the usage is hugely different.

The actual effect of the Shockwave spell, is that it violently pushes all enemy units within range outward from the center of the exposion. Basically it does no damage, but shifts the location of enemy units in the direction opposite of where the rocket hit. The range of this spell should be between 8 and 12, and the AoE should be pretty large, close to half a screen in every direction.

I know it's hard to get a grasp of what the hell this spell would be used for, so let me explain in more detail. If you are faced with a swarm of Zerg and your Protoss army consist mostly of ranged units, you fire off the spell and throws all the Zerg units back about half a screen(or less, shouldn't be more). Another example, you are faced with a well organized Terran army with close to perfect unit positioning and formation. You fire off the spell dead in the middle of the Terran army throwing the guys in the back further away from you for about half a screen, at the same time pulling the guys at the front closer to you. Now the Terran army is divided into two, with almost a screen's distance between them. Of course the Terran player can quickly regroup and pull the guys in the front back and the guys in the back forward, but it still would create a window of mementary tactical advantage for the Protoss.

You can also use it to scatter enemy units guarding a choke to buy your army a window of timing, I think the possibilities are limitless. However, the most important thing is that this spell doesn't deal any damage and doesn't win you any battles directly, it merely offer you a chance at having a tactical advantage, you would still have to have some skills to be able to take advantage of it. But it's still a pretty big tactical advantage in the right hands and should be a spammable or abusable spell, so it's why I suggest it as a "super unit" MS ability. I think a problem with the super MS, is that the spells directly deal massive damage when the MS already had good offensive capabilites. Instead of doing more damage, which the rest of you units can already do, they should seek ways of how the MS can offer tactical advantages for the rest of your troops. As much as I want the MS as a super unit, and as good as I think it should be, I don't think it should even remotely be close to possible to function on its own AT ALL.

One last concern

Whatever happened to the...
Sac Riders [size=10pt]TM[/size]
Will the Sac Riders be able to rescue little Jimmy? Will they be able to restore peace? Will they ride more sacs? Please tune in next time for another episode of Sac Riders.

NOTE: Sorry for the double post, but it exceeded the character limit.

 

powerup for the effort ill start reading now so sorry if i dubblepost after ive read it, id o not agree with the thor, the siege tank is basiccaly a static defender while the thor is a heavy attacker, the thor does far less damage than the siege tank and it has a big bonus against armored units, while the siege tank is bassicaly a tier 1 destroyer, the thor destroyes tier 2 and buildings

the terrans can only salvage static defense like missile turrets, bunkers, sensor/radar tower

i agree with you on the cobra

i think it's too soon to start about the muta

Great idea on the pylon

i use minerals in late game quite much, i still mostly use marines, vultures, medics and siege tanks, only one of these cost gas

 

No props needed before you actually read the whole thing.  The length of a post isn't a merit in itself.

The reason for this post isn't so we can have a place to have people gather and pat Remy on the back.  It's so we can get everyone's input and feedback on issues raised here so we can take them into consideration on what to submit to Blizzard in our monthly report(s).

 

Right out of the hospital and the first thing I do is complain about one of Remys post lol...

Mothership: I hope it returns to a singular "superunit" again, but I could live with a fleet too.

Thor: My point on it should be clear by now, just wanted to add that it has 900HP in the Terran GP Video.

Salvage: I really really doubt its on EVERY Building. The idea is to improve mobility, meaning that at least Buildings with lift off should not have it.

Cobra: Maybe a bit bland, looks fine as Anti Armor solution but I wouldn´t care if it gets axed.

On the Minerals an Gas I´ll quote myself :

Anything concerning the Zerg: Let´s hold our breath until they are released ok?

I agree on anything else.

 

I am going to do the same thing you did Remy, and list out a long post of my concerns thus far about Starcraft 2. Items that Remy mentions above that I completely agree with I will leave out of the below post.

Mothership

The Mothership has been talked about constantly, and I did like Remy's Shockwave idea, so I am going to keep this part brief. I also believe that the Mothership should regain its super-unit status, as well as regain its former ability to hit ground and air. I really don't like how currently it cannot attack enemy air units.

On the other hand, if Blizzard decides to keep the Mothership entirely anti-air, I really think they should employ random guy's wormhole idea. See http://www.starcraft2forum.org/forums/index.php?topic=2042.0 for details.

I really liked Black Hole, and I think it is possible to include it in a significantly nerfed way, so it'd be cool to see it back.

Star Relic/Stasis Orb/Cloaking Field

The Stasis Orb seems right now to be a real lousy replacement for the Star Relic. While its 'slowing' ability has potential, I think they should scrap it and bring back the Star Relic, as Remy also said above. And while we are on the Star Relic, the cloaking field ability should definitely NOT be on the Mothership. Give it to the Star Relic or whatever Arbiter replacement Blizzard decides to put into the game.

As far as the actual ability goes, I think it should be a mix of the old Starcraft and what is current. It should be passive cloaking for units, but require activation for buildings. In other words, the unit that has the ability should be able to move while cloaking units, but not while cloaking buildings. I think this will keep old Starcraft players happy while at the same time adding a new facet for Starcraft 2.

Salvage

I think that salvage should either only return 25-50% of the original cost or be limited to non-transit buildings, as said above.

Cobra

I know it's been said a gazillion times, but for emphasis - INCREASE THE SPEED!

Phase Cannons

Currently, Phase Cannons in phasing mode will simply be unable to move if the Pylon Power that was supplying them is lost. I think that it makes much more sense and players will be much more careful if the Phase Cannon is simply lost when this happens. It will also add to the Pylon-destroying strategies of Terran and Zerg players.

Banelings

Seem way too powerful at the moment. Right now, in the middle of battle one can quickly mutate Zerglings into Banelings and BOOM enemy armies are gone. I am not saying that the explosions are too powerful, I just think that Banelings aren't vulnerable enough. Two things could be done to alleviate this.

A - decrease the mutation speed. Although admittedly the demo might have sped up the transformation.

B - make the Baneling eggs easier to destroy. While the Zerglings were mutating in the video, the Protoss forces were unable to destroy any of the eggs. This makes it conceivably very powerful to change your Zerglings into Banelings in the heat of battle when your Zerglings are almost dead.

Terran Firebat/Reaper

I know there has been a lot of discussion on this unit and a lot of people want the unit to return, but I disagree. The Firebat should not be back. I think that like the Battlecruiser's customizable abilities, Reapers similarly should be able to choose between a Flamethrower and Dual Pistols (once researched of course). In my opinion this is the best compromise.

Twilight Archon/Question of Multiple Archons

For the sake of gameplay and unit numbers, Blizzard should NOT make different archons result from different combinations. I do not think this is likely to happen anyway, but I wanted to make my opinion known.

I also think that the Twilight Archon should represent the reunification of the Protoss and be exclusively created from a HT/DT meld. That said, this is a minor issue and I can deal with the current situation as is.

I would also like to see another new ability besides Feedback and the awesome attack, but not Mind Control or Maelstrom. As a suggestion, how about an ability called 'Psionic Fury.' This would only be used in desperation. Upon activation, the Twilight Archon would move and attack twice as fast (or more) but at the cost of slowly draining its own shields. It would serve as a new strategy or desperation tactic.

Thor

I agree with Remy's thoughts on the Thor, but just wanted to quickly mention that it should also be vulnerable to anti-air attacks just like the Colossus because of its size.

Predator

I really like the replacement for the Wraith and the 'intercept' ability seems promising. My one complaint is the lack of ground attack. I think the Predator should have a really weak ground attack like the former Wraith did. It will still be able to specialize as anti-air with such an attack. I just personally feel like air-to-air only attacks have an extremely limited use.

Colossus Transport

Despite its size, I think that the Colossus should be able to be transported in a Phase Prism. While it makes sense that a Dropship would physically be unable to load and unload a Thor, Phase Prisms transform units into pure energy and transport them as such. Therefore, why can't the Colossus be made into energy for transport? If the Protoss can do it for everything else, size should not matter. Although of course if one loads a Colossus it should take up more slots than any other Protoss unit.

Zerg

To wrap up my list, I just want to say that with all this waiting we are doing for the Zerg to finally be revealed I expect an amazing new mechanic from Blizzard. As Remy said in his post, there are a number of strategical and mechanical items that the Protoss and Terran have that need to be countered.

 

@ Unentschieden, Why'd you go to the hospital?  Sorry to hear that man.

About the high-yield gas and the goblin shredder, yes I have played War3.  But goblin shredder isn't something that if you get, you're opponent must fight you over the possession of it.  Meaning, your opponents never come trying to get your shredder just so they can use it.

High-yield gas would be something that is highly contested, it will be very different from the shredder where you can just leave it alone in your base and forget about it while it does its thing.

IMO, the very reason that Blizzard wanted to include high-yield resources is to add yet another strategic aspect of the game by having players compete over the possession of it.  But that concept only works if it offers enough of an advantage to balance out the risk and effort that would go into obtaining it.  As it is right now, there is little reason to even go through the trouble of securing high-yield minerals.  The only time high-yield minerals would make a difference is early on, but players are unlikely to be able to secure a site safely that early on.  When you actually have the capabilities of securing the HY minerals, it loses its worth.  If HY resources don't offer enough of an advantage that players would want to get it, why even have it in the game?

Even with HY gas, it's not like you instantly get a lump sum payment of a load of gas.  You have to set up your assimilator/refinery/extractor as well as a nex/CC/hatch for your workers to deposit the gas.  It is a time consuming process that even under the best scenario, only increase the rate of your gas income.  So by the time you actually see enough of a benefit from it, it would be well into mid-game.  But realistically, something of such a strategic importance wouldn't be left uncontested.  It is not likely that you would play against a skilled player and you would be playing gas tycoon.

You can't compare it to the shredder because the risk and effort involved in obtaining and using one is completely different from HY resource sites. You can't take one home with you like you do with the shredder after all.

 

Suspicion on Appendicitis. Hurt like Hell! I barely got around surgery.

The Goblin shredder was only a example, not a equivalent. I just wanted to point out that there are 2 different resources for a reason. If yellow minerals are a important enough reason to fight over them will depend on the final economy, but note that even "normal" minerals are fought over.
You argue that Gas would be more valuable - exactly. Thats why we don´t get it, it would make these positions more important - too important imho. These positions should offer advantages not deciding factors. It could turn a map with it into a "King of the hill mod", the one who could secure the position long enough wins.
If we have 2 Exe sites one with Y Mins and one with Y Gas wich is better? Gas duh! If we have a Exe with both it´s simply 2 Exes for thwe price of one making it a nobrainer. If we just want to make one Exe site more popular than another (and that is the issue, YMins are not just for the LULZ) then different Mins are enough.
Yellow mineral is not that strong, but even you have to admit it is better than normal Minerals. In highly competative games every factor counts and you can be shure that these positions will be fought over.
Who wants to type "GG" because your enemy set up a refinery/assimilator...

Resources should be A not THE deciding factor in SC2 imho.

 

nice psot remy. i read it all. thanks. adds up to my english learning. thanks.

wow. i agree about the high yield gas instead of minerals. i think BOTH should be in the game.

mothership shockwave ftw! like the idea and the visuals should be great. i want this skill if the they already removed the black hole.

salvage, i think its nice if nerf down a little like 70% minerals back.

stacking air units, yes specially with large air units it just looks so UGLY. fix it blizz. wheres the collision size of the battlecruisers?

cobra, looks boring. change the model but should still hover.

what are sac riders?

heres my only complain for now.

phase canon.. i really dont know about this ability. why not make many canons. and i think a TIER 2 system for the canons is BETTER. more powerful upgraded canon. AERIAL PHASE CANONS!

SC2 needs aerial buildings for more innovations. and adds up more new tactics and strategies.

 

i like the shockwave idea, good plan, but what would happen to like a siege tank? also, what would happen to rines? would they fall over or just be pushed out?

i like the reaper/fb idea, how they can upgrade down two paths like the bc, nice

that was the longest post(s) ive ever read lol

*edit*

i forgot, i would love to c the lings b able to morph to banelings OR morph to scourges, i mean there both the same unit but one is flyin. anyways, the lings already have like wings

 

@ Unentschieden, Ouch!  I hope you get well soon.

I think you exaggerate the impact of the high-yield gas quite a bit.  Nothing is decided when one player sets up an assimilator/refinery/extractor, it merely means that the player is now in the position to start reaping the benefit, which is a time consuming process.

Let's write the best case scenario and say that a player successfully set up shop at the HY gas site, and had the easiest time doing so with the attempt left completely uncontested.  And let's say the opponent even left it alone after that point for some odd reason, so the player is actually harvesting high-yield gas.  Even then, with a high-yield vespene geyser providing double gas per trip for him, it is only like having an additional gas expo.

While having one more gas expo than the opponent is undoubtedly a big advantage, it is not at all game ending in itself.  The situation happens a lot, and sometimes go back and forth many times in the course of a single game.  So while the advantage offered is a realistic one, it isn't even remotely close to being able to secure a definitive victory.  The benefit comes in very small increments that you must reap consistently over a good period of time. The large advantage only comes after some time has been spent, it is in no way an instant advantage, not even close.

But a high-yield gas site would carry the disadvantage of always being a high priority target due to its high profile.  And it is logical to think that the location would not make a convenient expansion to begin with.  It is most likely that a high-yield resource site would be positioned in more central locations on maps, instead of letting whoever spawning closest to one be the lucky winner.  So compared to other expos, HY expos are farther away from you but closer to the enemy.  Which in turn, means harder to defend for you and easier to attack(especially repeatedly) for the enemy.  High-yield minerals ain't worth none of that trouble.  I don't think I would go for HY minerals personally TBH.

 

Well, Remy, don't forget that if you have a HY resource site, you're getting two expansions for the price of one, quite literally. Plus you get more bang for your buck with the food taken up by less workers.

You then have to decide if the cost of defending that position (and/or keeping those resources out of the hands of your opponent) is worth the additional cost. Don't forget that you can still expo after that which leaves you with a super-expo.

I'd be willing to take the risk if it was both HY gas and HY minerals. But maybe not just one or the other.

Definitely NOT for HY minerals. I have too many of those already. The only advantage for minerals would be the reduction in workers.

 

Thor
Its relatively cheap compared to a seige tank, at blizzcon it was about the price of 2 siege tanks taking up the same foodpop. Thor will give you 300 extra hp but less damage. Also, the artillery strike can take down a planetary fortress, so thats about 1500damage which is nothing to be unimpressed at lol

Salvage
not all terran buildings are salvagable, as of blizzcon it was just add-ons, bunkers, radar tower and supply depo. the symbol is an arrow with a hand pulling on it. Other than having supply depo not salvageable i think its ok, as long as the time taken is around 15seconds to stop noobness

Pylon vs Cannon vs Phase Prism
agree completely

Tech Lab, Terran fast tech
i think this was a design feature

Shockwave(Mothership special ability idea)
sounds interesting, i dont think blizz likes unit throwback though

 

Well The final importance of Gas will be seen, but unlike Minerals Gas has a "definite" income, If you control one Geyser it´s x income, with 2 its 2x.
Mineral income on the other side has big differences depending on Worker number, time spend on it and harrasment from the enemy.
They had to be lenient there unless "woker" micro becomes too important (theoretically you loose mins as long as workers stand next to their building). Perfecting Mineral income was relativly hard for little effect since no amount of microing improved your Gas income. A good player had minimal "abundant" Mineral income. That is since they spend more time on Mining than intended, giving them more minerals than they could use effectivly.

Now that you can rally Minerals the Mineral income will be mostly consistant between all Players - allowing a thighter pricing. I think they can now make the Min/Gas relation a bit closer now that Min income isn´t as variable as before (it still is variable though).

 

Rem, i'd have to say I disagree with your take on HY gas and minerals in their "effectiveness"

I think if anything, it'd promote early rush expansions as a strat, because as you said they'd still be helpful but not as helpful late game. But it could be used as I suggested as a rushing strat, essentially you decide you wanna rush and grab a HY pocket right off the bat. Great idea, the money you recieve will more than make up for the money you spent early on. However, oh noes, you got attacked, and you spent your money on that expo instead of troops. Consarnit! Like you said Rem, Risk/Reward.

*edit* everything else was spot on though (except thor, I pmed you)

 

I think a game played at anything other than the "noob" skill level would mean huge risk(even comapred to the reward) in going for a HY expo site very early in the game. Like I've stated before, unlike regular expos, HY sites are high profile, high priority(target), and most likely positioned in such a way that it is easier to attack and hard to defend. Since everyone would know to scout the HY resource site, I honestly don't think there's a slim chance in hell that you can pull off a fast HY expo before pool/rax/GW and get away with it.

Unentschieden, what you said is basically that gas is the more controlled variable, thus, easier to balance. But there is a cap to the rate at which you can mine from a patch of minerals, just like gas. It's equal to however many workers required to harvest on a mineral patch or vespene geyser to never leave a gap in harvest timing. This number changes depending on the distance between resource nodes to the nexus/CC/hatch, which effects the time it takes for a worker to travel to deposit the resources harvested and make it back to the resource node to wait its turn. At maximum harvest rate, realistically you will always have idle workers doing nothing but waiting for its turn.

Even though mineral patches usually vary in distance to the main building, the difference is small enough to be negligible. And since maps are usually designed with expo sites to have resource nodes all roughly equal distance from the main building, the number of workers required to achieve maximum harvest rate is always roughly the same. That number for a vespene geyser is 3, which is common knowledge. Even with 3 workers to a geyser you still have workers spending time waiting, but that's just so you won't ever have any gap in harvesting. So adding more workers to that geyser doesn't increase your harvest rate at all, since instead of one worker waiting each time, it will be two, the same goes for any more workers added.

The same is actually just as true for mineral patches. There will be maximum ratio of X workers per Y mineral patches to which you will see an increase in harvest rate, adding anymore workers beyond that point will make no difference. So minerals and gas actually work exactly the same way, not only gas have a "definite" income unlike what you said.

The reason why people don't put as many workers on minerals to reach maximum harvest rate, is because how abundant mineral patches are compared to vespene geysers. Even at 3 workers per geyser, you are sacrificing maximum efficiency per worker in favor of maximum harvest rate. But because of how scarce vespene geysers are, you prioritize harvest rate over efficiency. It's not the same for minerals because you can always just go expand to more minerals, and also since there are so many mineral patches compared to geysers, you put more workers to waste once efficiency starts to drop off.

Even just by takign a close look at that aspect, you can tell that vespene gas is always the limiting factor. If people aren't even willing to push for maximum harvest rate per mineral patch now, I don't see how HY minerals will offer enough of a benefit. Especially when fighting for a HY site means a huge increase in the risk factor. But moving past early-game, it's the gas expos that matter anyway. And IMO, being able to harvest more minerals with less workers is hardly a benefit that justifies the risk. At early-game, when the minerals will actually matter, the max food cap is not a limiting factor anyway. If the number of mineral patches per starting main on a map is doubled, you would simply build more food supplier and build more workers to take advantage of it.

Now about the thor, I think it is generally accepted that the thor in the BlizzCon Terran gameply video has been boosted with cheats, and in real games a thor would not be able to single handedly take out a planetary fortress. And Hadean, in the PM you said the thor has longer range than siege tanks, I was wondering if that's actually confirmed info. Unless it's actually been confirmed to be true, I find that unlikely. In SC1 siege mode tank attack range was 12, which was 150% of the carrier or guardian's attack range. I don't find it plausible that the thor would have it longer than that, especially with better stats. And what you said pertaining to the function of the thor, can already be achieved with everything else that Terran has.

GuiMontag, I think the thor is 6 food IIRC. So thor isn't equal to 2 siege tanks. But when you take a look at tier 3 units in general, and only at resource cost vs food, most of them cost less in resources compared to their cost in food anyway.

So the salvage is strictly just addons, bunkers, sensor/radar tower, and supply depo? What about the missile turret, munitions depot, and refinery? It's good that tech buildings can not be salvaged, but I still think 100% is too good. You can still get all your money back after offensive bunkering all over the place.

 

I never said Mineral output wasn´t theoretical maxable. You confirmed yourself that maximum Mineral income would require inefficient numbers of SCV. Also don´t underestimate the effect harrassment can have on Mineral income.
Yes Vespene is the limiting factor. I don´t remember saying anything else, actually thats what I was getting at. Thats how it balances development, by being limiting!
HY Exes are not supposed to give a huge advantage, they should differinate Expo desicions. You are condradicting yourself if you say that they are highly contested AND worthless. Normal Resources are also contested, what is the difference between attacking a normal and a HY Exe?
I think you are overestimating the effect HY would have on the Game. They should make a less optimal position more attractive, not create a "king of the hill" situation.

You complain that they would not give a significant advantage, I say that is intended.

 

Never said worthless, but HY mineral sites would be not worth the risk early-game because it will be highly contested.  I don't think players would have the capabilities of securing one early-game anyway.

You are starting to question what I've already explained, but here.  The HY expo would be different because it will be equally accessible to all players or starting mains, thus logically positioned closer the the center of the map.  You don't start off a game expanding toward the center of the map, you choose expo sites that are closer to your starting main so it's easier to defend for you and harder to attack for the enemy.  As it moves closer toward the center, it is being positioned farther from your starting main and closer to the enemy starting main, when compared to other expo sites.  What is so hard to understand about that?  The level of harassment that you would see at a HY expo will hardly be equal to that of a normal expo.  To make everything worse, the HY expo has a higher profile and the location is know from the start by everyone.

Let's make it simple.  Gas is the limiting factor, you've agreed to that.  You get more minerals, so what?  Gas is still the limiting factor.  So everything is limited by gas, and that doesn't change.  So why would you go out of your way to get more minerals when it's the gas that makes a difference?  I would just go for another gas expo.

 

minerals is enough to make M&M's and you only need little gas for siege tank and vulture so im ok

 

Acutally, Terran is widely considered to be the most gas dependant race.