The "C&C-ization" of Starcraft 2

Re: Veterancy Capabilities

Fixt

 

If they're going to do a rank system, I hope they don't do it like that screenshot: with random markers slapped n top of the unit. It is perfectly possible and reasonable to create alternate unit models for higher-ranked units, and they should!

**thread edit**
Merged "C&C-ization" and "Veterancy," these threads cover the exact same concepts.

 

I know that many people would hate the ranking system for SC2 but hear me out on this one.

Rankings would be great IF and ONLY IF it was for the Terrans. This feature would once again, make each race even more distinctive. Why should it be only for the Terrans? Terran units all seemed to have some sort of rank for each unit in SC1. Besides, it suits the Terran theme for it. They are versertile. Protoss units shouldn't have ranks simply because they are like 300 year old warriors. They are the elites of the elite and not to mention, all their units are loaded with HP and damage. Zergs wouldn't make sense because their race is all about swarming. Terran just seems to perfectly fit that role.

I actually really like the Ranking system if it would be for Terrans only. Not only would it make each race more unique, it would also make a lot of sense + make the game more fun. For the people that says it is too C&Cish, I think we should all have an open-mind and trust Blizzard. They are known to make good games, and if Blizzard is really going make units with Ranking system, we should trust them because I'm sure they would find a balance that would make this Ranking system work in SC2.

 

Maybe they should have put the castes on the protoss units too (im talking bout SC1). Just like a terran can be a "Private" or a "Colonel" protoss could be divided into their three castes. Arbiters could have the "Judicator" rank, zealots the "templar" rank and probes or reavers the "khalai" rank since there are not khalai worker units in the game. Do you know what I mean? Have you read the protoss story?

 

Well, it seems to me that this complements game play style very well. When I watch a really great starcraft match, I am always amazed at the way a pro does things like micro a reaver into a dropship: it takes a lot of effort, and only saves a unit or two, but often makes the difference in the end. Why not reward this kind of tactic?

With regards to YCH9's comments about terran rank exclusivity... I really like that idea. I am always up for a little more diversity in my races (wow... that sounded really pc-ey) but consider the unit we are talking about: the soul stealer is (I am assuming) upgrading its suit firepower as a direct result of its kills, maybe through some sort of soul-battery (oooh... good band name). Just like a terran would improve through experience, a soul stealer improves just because of a better weapon, and I think that makes perfect sense. The zerg could be the ones who are distinct because they do not have this kind of system, just like in starcraft 1 with no cloaking units.

[edit]
could someone clarify the issue with gold minerals for me? Isn't this no different than having, say, one expansion place have 2 gas geysers?

 

No i don't think so, from what i understood (and i'm not sure if i'm right), every SCV/probe/drone will be giving in more minerals in the same time than the probe/drone/SCV in blue minerals.

 

But what does having good micro management have to do with ranks? Is the shuttle going to earn more experience just because the player uses it more skillfully? The only way to level up units is through killing, I think. But the idea doesnt fit starcraft fast paced rythm. Im assuming you play fastest games, and not normal. I think that in a lost temple game, people wont care about rising unit ranks.

Besides, we are all only speculating. As I said before, maybe that is just a waypoint mark or something.
They could even have alrady decided they wont implement ranks in sc2 and we dont even know it, or maybe they never though about it in the first place.

 

The only times a unit gets vastly more kills are when
A) it is fighting things that cannot fight back, or can only fight with a token attack (like a BC vs tanks or marines)
B) it is in a very good position in the terrain
C)When its controller micros the hell out of it
All three of these are directly related to player skill, especially micro. On a fastest map, units die so quickly it won't matter. Options A and B should really never happen, unless you're playing against your grandma and she doesn't know how to move units away. This only leaves C. In every major battle, despite the composition and position of each army, micro can always make a difference, and skilled player will always micro. The units that are more skillfully micro'd will always end up with more kills. This directly rewards a skilled player! This is a good thing... unless you plan on staying a n00b forever.

Blackness- yeah, I believe you're right about the gold minerals. Every time a probe brings one back, they are supposed to yeild more that a blue min. I was speaking more in terms of how it would effect strategy. For example, the number of geysers an expansion has will often effect strategy (and not in a negative way). Thanks for clarifying though.

 

Ranks... I hate them. "This isn't Warcraft in space!" Just another way of making a game seem like it has more depth while discouraging strategy/macro... I'll hate Blizzard forever if they include ranks. And as lifeprolific said, units die too quickly to matter.

 

Oh god... It's just as we feared.

Some of the new terran units REALLY have me worried. for example:
-multiple build queues ad-on. The crane idea from CnC was retarded
-The banshee's AOE damage. Cmon, this is a rip off of the choppers DIRECTLY.
-The ghosts' snipe ability. well, ok, this one inst too bad.
-The cobra can move and attack at the same time (like most tanks could)
-Radar domes... what's next, gap generators?

I know i'm just being paranoid. Everyone knows change is bad bad bad

 

I have never played C&C, so I can't really comment about the comparision. But if SC2 is grabbing the good ideas from C&C, then I'm all for it. But then of course, don't make it too similiar because SC2 still needs its own identity.

 

I hope they dont keep this whole ranking system...it sucked in C&C and it will tilt the balance of many games...

Now perhaps we are jumping the gun and thats just a kill counter....which is fine....but I hope they dont have the units gain XP....Next thing you know they will decide to have creeps for you to kill and Heros for each race...

This talk of specail minerals...that is also kinda crappy...might as well call them tiberium...

If blizzard really wants to impress us...they should consentrate on makeing a 4th race....

 

I don't get it... one unit, now removed... Gets a new ability and suddenly the game is a crap C&C clone?

 

uh... I don't know what you're trying to say, but it seems that you disagree with some of the concerns.

When every unit starts getting too many abilities, it starts to feel less and less like starcraft; where you click and the units smash. Also, with the lead designer a former CnC employee and quite a bit of game mechanics coming from the Cnc universe, there is a sort of paranoia going around.

Needless to say, blizzard will do a fine job, but we just want it to play like starcraft, not cnc.

 

You know WHY they're talking about so many C&C Ideas? because the lead designer was the bloody lead designer for Red Alert 2. Yeah it was fun every now and again. But SC still beats it in all categories. I'm worried he's gonna turn this into another Generals (another one he was lead design for).

And the Cobra attacks and moves essentially the same way the vulture did, thats what i'm assuming anyway cause those cannons dont look like they turn.

 

No, the guy mentiones the Soul Hunter gets stronger with more kills... then suddenly we all assume that all units do that? It's probably just a kill counter and a rank...

Cobras hover, so they very well might be able to strafe...

The turret does rotate.

 

Those new terran mechs look like titans/wolverines/juggernauts from tiberian sun. But any mech would look that way... except a goliath. By the way, why mechs? Is it a trick to sell more game copies to the japanese cartoon fans?

 

other than mechs there isnt much they could give the terrans for vehicles that arn't air, they already have a tank and hovercraft. are there any other futuristic vehicles that are cool other than mechs?

 

I totally agree, but two? I think one is enough. Or make the thor different, like four leged or something that makes it different from the viking.

 

I am ABSOLUTELY against the use of ranks to create "heroes" similar to Warcraft 3. No offense to any Warcraft fans, but heroes most definitely ruined that game for me. It is absolutely unbalanced and took everything away from micro, strategy, etc.... It made the game who can level their hero fastest and then create huge amounts of damage with it. It turned in Diablo II except with minor other units involved.

The ONLY way I would be able to tolerate ranking is if perhaps, a unit has been used well and has gained experience.... that could be in length of time alive, shots fired, enemies killed, etc... Let's say they do that. I could tolerate if a unit gained experience and BECAUSE of that, gained rank to say a Colonel and therefore required less maintenance. So if a user used the same tank all game, instead of him costing 3 out of 200 supply units, he only uses 2 or 1. In this manner, the unit wouldn't be any more powerful, but could legitimately use the fact that it has survived and gained experience in campaign to be more efficient and effective.

PLEASE Blizzard, do NOT turn this game into Warcraft.

Finally, in relation to C&C, there is no comparison. DO NOT compare StarCraft to C&C. Totally different in that C&C sucks and SC is the greatest RTS game ever created. Let's hope it will soon be the second best next to StarCraft II.