Suggestion for possible Military/Industrial Command stations

[BGMFH]

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?

[lurkily]

Ive 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.

[BGMFH]

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.

[Grauniad]

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. :)

[TrickyDragon]

well too little sleep is commonplace for anyone in college ^^ 
but i am pretty sure lurkily is outta college by now  ???

[lurkily]

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.

[4xC]

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.

[Grauniad]

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.

[4xC]

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.

[lurkily]

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.

[koker93]

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 :)

[lurkily]

Okay, sure.  I got this itch between my toes.  I'm pretty sure that was previously unreleased information.  :)

[ShadowDragon7015]

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.

[BGMFH]

You were.

That is part of where I got the idea from.

[ShadowDragon7015]

So why not just ask for that option?