SHOULD blizzard impliment veterancy for terrans?

LimaBeanMage, you still woulndt care much about the vet units, its not that big of an upgrade to actually "care" for that unit.

Dodging is iffy...extra units sounds better since they get warped, so you get the chance to warp in 2 units, and again you say toss units are strong, thats numbers, you can make the chance rather small, just a little nice surprise.

Wick, those again are numbers, which can be change, if 90% of the units dont make it to veterancy reduce the number of kills to rank up, if ranking up too fast is overpowered, nerf down the bonuses they get from ranking up,

Numbers can be changed,question is, should we have this?

 

You are right, Reaker, you will not fight an army of heroes. Of course you don't need an army of heroes to disrupt standard tactics. If you have a hero or two in a skirmish with otherwise equally matched forces then you will probably win, assuming your opponent doesn't out micro you. Small battles can be easily turned with an imbalance of unit specs.

I just feel that veteran will start to unsettle the classic types of battle system that Starcraft is known for. It is very straightforward and very clean cut. But moreover you don't care about about units individually unless they are expensive and very few in numbers.

 

@ninerman13

even if you factor in the protoss' toughness and zergs' short-lived-ness along with healing, repairing, shield battery and a bunch of other stuff they are still NOT the determining factor of whether the difference in regeneration is balanced. the determining factor of what makes regen balanced is the RATE of regeneration, i.e. numbers

 

True. The numbers are another layer in how they balanced it - I just didn't feel like delving into that. My arguments against Terran-only veterancy were simply using the regeneration balance-by-life-in-combat-modifications as a stepping stone.

 

@LimaBeanMage

I think that even in the highest rank of veterancy, the unit will not be that powerfull, i think we should be aiming somewhere around 10-20% stronger at the highest rank to prevent that.

Edit: dont think of it as an upgarde, think of it as an additional mechanic to separate the 3 races.

 

Veterancy alone could never be imbalanced. No single mechanic can be imbalanced. You can have powerful mechanics and weak ones. Only when one race gets a disproportionate amount of either strong or weak mechanics would you have an imbalance.

As far as whether it should be in the game or not... go for it, Blizzard.

It seems to be an insignificant enough mechanic, in that if you have many veteran units you are winning anyways. For example: you have twenty marines; it takes ten kills to achieve veterancy. To make all your marines veterans you would have to kill your enemies entire population without losing a marine. In fact, under those circumstances, you could justify making the veterancy obscenely powerful (I'm thinking +10 attack, and a speed and range upgrade), just because rarely will a marine reach ten, fifteen, or twenty kills. And even then it won't be much harder to kill than an average marine.

On a side note, veterancy actually rewards better players for their superior micro. Would you want to remove something that benefits players with more skill?

P.S. I have a feeling, just from seeing the screenshots with the ranks over marines' and siege tanks' heads, that a form of veterancy is incorporated into the game at this point. Also, the website makes a claim that reapers having served two years are released. Maybe you lose veteran reapers at some point?

 

Reapers is just lore, it says not a single reaper survived past the 5th month or something

Vikings also say that are hard to control, and its hard to get pilots, but talanted pilots become aces in the terran army etc.

 

Why turn starcraft into command and conquer,a series which hasnt produced a good game in years. Veterancy would be terrible, especially if it gave upgrades as large as +1 damage as someone said, would that stack with upgrades or be in place of it, either way it would suck.

 

How is +1 damage after 1-2 heck even last rank make a huge difference when it only affects 1(one) marine?

 

ok. heres the thing. again. the veterancy will not really be that of an advantage that could win you battles. no way, as it is ONLY A SMALL BONUS etc.

the important thing here is THE FEEL and COOLNESS it will bring for the terran. just another PROP that will make starcraft 2 more innovative than the original. ^^

 

COOLNESS?

How is a seige tank blasting the crap out of Protoss units straight out of the factory NOT cool???

You guys have the wrong idea about the Terran... its not the experience, its the FIREPOWER!!!

Also, StarCraft is supposed to be about a number of different talents, not just handling a particular unit well. This will punish the player who might play macro really well but isn't so great with keeping a number of units alive to become more powerful..

I'm all for it if its for aesthetic reasons.

 

You seem to not understand the term "innovatation". Taking something thats already featured in SEVERAL other RTS titles and implementing it in a game that didnt' have it before (SC series) doesnt mean it's innnovative...you'll probably hear more criticism about copying/stealing instead of praises.

 

ok. but new and innovative(GROUNDBREAKING) for starcraft 2. 8)

who said keeping units alive to make them powerful. its just OPTIONAL, your lucky if you will get a commander or something. ofcourse you should not focus on doing this as it is just a minor advantage.

again the important thing is the MILITARY FEEL it gives to of the terran.

 

well said Duke, this is what many people don't understand when they complain about balance

 

I don't get what you mean, Zeratul. If there's a system of ranks that makes units more powerful, even SLIGHTLY so, then keeping a unit alive through a battle will end up bringing its rank up. Some players don't micro all that well and will have a harder time keeping specific units alive, just as I said.

This means that players with a micro advantage will gain an ever further one even though the other player might be a better macro player and have more expansions.

 

@Joneagle_X

for balance, the power gained from promotions should to be small and there will be a limit on how many ranks a unit can be promoted. also there's an underlying limit on how much promotion a player can get in a normal competitive game. if you read reply #75 and #89 carefully you should get what i mean.

i'll provide an extract here:

 

If a unit can be promoted in battle and becomes more powerful, then it is simply more powerful, no matter how it gets that way.

If you can keep that unit alive, i.e. draw it away from the fight, micro it, once it has been promoted, you now have a more powerful unit for the same food that you had before.

Therefore it will become a strategy, no matter how small the advantage that players will use to create a stronger army for less minerals. ESPECIALLY in tier 1 play when the strength of one unit can often turn the tide of an entire battle.

Say you build a seige tank, its your first one of the game and you kill 4 Marines with it. It is then promoted to a Captain, or w/e. Then, if it is repaired by an SCV and faces another Tank, despite its SMALL ADVANTAGE, it will still kill that tank.

Considering how long it takes to BUILD a tank and the fact that if that promoted tank is repaired AGAIN, there is pretty much no way to overcome that more powerful unit unless you have numbers on your side. In tier 1, if the other player has already killed some of your units, that's pretty much impossible.

EDIT: So again, I say that it will create a HUGE imbalance toward players who have good micro ability and a disadvantange to those more skilled at macro.
Gg, no re.

 

starcraft is not about single units, and the kind of micro skills required are not the same as in wc3, if you have a couple of marines that are 20% stronger than normal in a 50 strong army then the impact on the outcome of a battle with a similar sized army is next to nothing. not huge imbalance as you say, the more skill player overall will still have a better chance to win.

also generally in sc1 macro>micro so what's so bad giving micro some more weapons?

 

Tell me who has 50 marines in tier 1 play?

ONE upgraded Tank can end the game, trust me.

If you DON'T trust me, go to youtube and watch a couple Korean matches. You will see that a tank and SCV played correctly can win an entire game almost all by itself. Unless faced with just too many units, which usually doesn't happen in tier 1 play, a seige tank being repaired is a dangerous weapon. If you further upgrade that tank for the kills it is making, you're in serious trouble.

EDIT: Macro > Micro only if you survive the early stages of the game.

 

i have watched more than my fair share of korean matches (btw terrans doesn't seem to be too well lately, protoss has been owning) and don't recall a single seige tank + scv ending any game, unless a player was using cheese. if you could provide some links that would be great.

what i have seen a lot is whole armies with upgrades getting owned by armies with less or no upgrades. veteran promotion is a lot less powerful than researched upgrades as vet only affect ONE unit.