Ive read discussion of people wanting more than 1 kind of command station, so I was thinking about it, and have a pair of proposals.
1> Military command station. Produces 60% less energy than a standard command station, but has a 50% higher packet limit, and a single short range particle cannon built in, as well as a half-power anti-spore beamer.
2> Industrial command station. Produces 50% more energy than a standard command station, but has a 60% slower packet generation rate, produces technytes at a rate equal to 1 techdome.
These could be either found/built during the campaign, or upgraded during the mission from a standard command station, but either way only one of each would be allowed on a given map.
Comments?
Quote from: BGMFH on November 15, 2012, 07:28:44 PMIve read discussion of people wanting more than 1 kind of command station,
Really?
A couple things to note:
There is no limit on the number of packets produced by a command node. If 1,000 units request energy, 1,000 packets will be dispatched in a tick.
There's no indication yet that Technytes will be used in CW3.
A particle cannon's range will only just cover the space a CN occupies.
A half-power beam may not be able to take down one spore before it impacts the CN.
Hmm, then my ideas wont work.
Was just a thought.
I figured a CW2 tech was more likely than a CW1 tech style.
The idea of the built in PC and Beamer was to support defense, not be a fortress.
Oh wells. Waiting for release.
Thank you, all suggestions and ideas are equally welcome. Don't mind lurkily, I think he's had too much caffeine and too little sleep lately. :)
well too little sleep is commonplace for anyone in college ^^
but i am pretty sure lurkily is outta college by now ???
I am, I am. Sleep is not always so easy to come by as a day off, though. I go to work, and I work, but I come home, and there are things I love that are also work, too. I guess that's how it goes.
Not trying to be hyper- critical. I just think he's pushing in the wrong directions. There are known factors that are problems in this proposal, so more needs to be done to make it workable. AC refinement is instant, but you could remove that from the military to make other types still necessary. Energy/ac storage can still be played with, too. Some upgrades may require one or the other to activate.
I just felt a beamer should be able at least one spore. Otherwise, you need supporting beams, and one beam can handle one spore alone, so the support wouldn't be necessary in that situation. PC's as well - if they can't protect the collectors close by, then without support, the CN is isolated and vulnerable, and requires PC support - which would make such short-ranged support largely meaningless.
Quote from: lurkily on November 15, 2012, 08:00:31 PM
There is no limit on the number of packets produced by a command node. If 1,000 units request energy, 1,000 packets will be dispatched in a tick.
Oh really?
Then why is it that no more than 60 energy can be dispersed in CW2? If that does not sound right, build and/or upgrade enough reactors in CW2 so that at least more than 60 energy is being produced, find a way to make energy use equal at least 60 (attack with many weapons, use more than 4 dark beams, overbuild unimaginably much, etc.) and watch as you cannot exceed 60.
If energy dispearse in CW3 is able to be infinitly many as you suggest, I will be surprised. It wasn't for CW2 and I am unsure if it is in CW1.
OK, all of the beta members should consider whether they are discussing stuff that is known only to Beta members and subject to change.
I got a reported post earlier and there are more transgressions in this thread.
Please, Beta members be careful what you say.
Good point. After all, the clip on the Starcraft II battlenet site that has new units for "Heart of the Swarm" is totally outdated.
For CURRENT examples:
the Warhound is removed, and the Battle Hellion is now a Hellbat
the Mothership Core has a new look and altered powers along with the Starcraft II Mothership it can become, Oracles can do something to enemy buildings that I cannot define right now, and as of the Fall season, the Carrier should not be in a removed state.
All of these facts are based on what I heard about Starcraft II Heart of the Swarm multiplayer changes as of the Fall season. The clips on Battlenet are from the Summer.
I would have sworn Virgil referenced that in blog . . . my mistake. Consider me chastised.
CW1 and CW2 had very different packet limits, and CW2's limit of 60 didn't exist if you had crystal energy, if I recall. And now, we're working in a code environment that lifts many of the limits seen in CW1 and 2. That's why we are seeing a lot of things not seen before, like very large game maps, and multiple packet sources.
no limit on packet production has been discussed before...but if you guys want to discuss some stuff that hasnt been previously released please feel free. You have my permission :)
Okay, sure. I got this itch between my toes. I'm pretty sure that was previously unreleased information. :)
Quote from: BGMFH on November 15, 2012, 07:28:44 PM
Ive read discussion of people wanting more than 1 kind of command station, so I was thinking about it, and have a pair of proposals.
1> Military command station. Produces 60% less energy than a standard command station, but has a 50% higher packet limit, and a single short range particle cannon built in, as well as a half-power anti-spore beamer.
2> Industrial command station. Produces 50% more energy than a standard command station, but has a 60% slower packet generation rate, produces technytes at a rate equal to 1 techdome.
These could be either found/built during the campaign, or upgraded during the mission from a standard command station, but either way only one of each would be allowed on a given map.
I think in CW1 you were able to adjust whether or not to let certain packets be made.
You were.
That is part of where I got the idea from.
So why not just ask for that option?
Because what he suggested goes beyond merely selecting which type of packets to produce. I think, the idea is worth pondering for a bit. It would certainly make good use of the multiple base concept.
I do think that concept was an inspiration for his idea. I do not think that concept is what he is trying to do here.
EDIT: Ooop, sorry Ro, didn't see you there.
The primary concept, if you look at the numbers I used, is to allow specialization at need, but to force a loss of total efficiency regardless.
Basically, choosing both a military and industrial CN in my opinion should not equal out to the same as choosing 2 standard CNs, but instead be 15-25% less efficient in total.
The problems I see inherent here are that economy and military are so tightly interwoven. Energy production == shots fired and weapons produced.
Perhaps you are approaching it from the wrong angle. Perhaps the types of CN's around determine the ranks of upgrades available? One can unlock a couple ranks in productive techs, another can unlock a couple ranks in military techs, and standard can unlock one in each.
That model doesn't show a lack of efficiency like you described, but still provides clear benefits and drawbacks to utilizing one or another. Utilizing a military command may give you more attack power via upgrades, but it would also limit the production upgrades you are capable of.
Quote from: lurkily on November 26, 2012, 07:53:10 PM
The problems I see inherent here are that economy and military are so tightly interwoven. Energy production == shots fired and weapons produced.
Perhaps you are approaching it from the wrong angle. Perhaps the types of CN's around determine the ranks of upgrades available? One can unlock a couple ranks in productive techs, another can unlock a couple ranks in military techs, and standard can unlock one in each.
That model doesn't show a lack of efficiency like you described, but still provides clear benefits and drawbacks to utilizing one or another. Utilizing a military command may give you more attack power via upgrades, but it would also limit the production upgrades you are capable of.
Nice. +1.
Agreed, that is a nice way of doing it.
Perhaps a mil CN gives a +10% mil research rate and a -15% production research rate, or instead perhaps a cost reduction instead of a rate change?
I'd rather go with providing access to the research, so that the benefit of one over another doesn't just go away with time.
EDIT: In other words, switch from military back to normal, and you lose your top-tier military upgrades.
Ah. See, Id prefer it be a permanent choice. Once you drop a mil CN on the map, you cant easily turn it into a normal or industrial CN.
Of course, Id also think it would be cool if most maps wouldnt let you drop all 3 CNs at once.
Mmmmm . . . that would lock you up at the start. I like the idea of being able to use technology choices later in the game. In CW2, once you had your technites, the technological game was basically over. In this model, you can make a decision to drop upgrades in order to open new paths, and in response to circumstances. It gives you strategic options.
This sounds like a great idea. In separate missions It would be cool to unlock things that enable you to drop down CN. This could also force you to drop down a Military Command Node and later progressing you acquire the tech and resources to drop down and economic CN thus enabling economic upgrades and military upgrades to strengthen your total force.
I'm thinking more along the lines of starting out with economic nodes, and expanding infrastructure faster at the start. With those economic upgrades available, you could expand quickly.
Once you have expanded, you need to hold your territory. You might switch to normal, giving up some of your economic advantage to gain combat upgrades - range, fire rate, etc.
Then you might require an offensive. Your infrastructure is secure, so you might switch one node to military for a more powerful assault.
Uh-oh! The increased drain on your economy slowed the reload of your beams. A spore got through at a critical juncture, and creepers is overrunning half your base. You might consider switching back to an economic node instead. You have the weapons to hold off creeper, but your energy infrastructure has been torn apart, and you need every ounce of efficiency out of what's left.
. . . . . that's the kind of decison that I envision this making possible. Of course, these switches would all take time and have costs, but it would allow you to re-align the focus of your play style. It doesn't have to be quick, but it is something the player can do to change the landscape of the battle without a lot of management.