Red-Rocket wrote:-Ok, excessive fights may be out, but fights lasting only 6 seconds was a real fun killer that people complained about in the beta
-boarding is fun, many people love the idea of boarding, im suprised at you most of all whyte-dragon for not liking boarding, your the one who does it the best. I would say flesh it out, and make killing marines harder (more health, less weapon damage and actual defense items and armor besides nano gloves)
Firstly, I know a lot of this talk may not necessarily pertain more to the SC2 game than the standalone, but that's more because we don't have too many details regarding the standalone ATM. So, with that in mind...
I have never seen fights last 6 seconds.
I think you misunderstand what I see in infiltration then. Tossing marines on the enemy battlecruiser and saying 'everybody fight' is
not what I think is interesting about infiltration -- it's about subterfuge, sneaking around, and
avoiding a head on fight. And, personally, I don't any none of that carrying over properly the moment we push for this boarding concept that's been suggested.
Moreover, this also causes a lot of issues with marine death and respawning -- not to mention balancing infiltration vs. boarding, and generally in my opinion just creates a lot of potentially messy issues in terms of evening out the two concepts to be individualistic.
It just seems weird to me that you'd essentially create a
necessity for boarding via this method. I understand you're trying to create allow a team to come back from lower resources, but I don't think this is it -- what this creates is a 'fall back' for a losing team to work with, but... if it's clearly designed just to give the losing team a chance by giving the
opportunity for the enemy to board, I see no reason why the winning side should even attempt to do so in the first place. They've dealt significant damage to the enemy, showing their upgrade superiority --
why would they bother to dock, potentially risking their lead, when they're already clearly winning? And if you create the inverse situation where the losing side attempts to invade, they're in an inferior position due to the resources available -- hence you're only putting them
further at a disadvantage in that case.
I think what you should be more looking for is to directly create a way to more effectively utilize weapons to obtain a higher damage output. This has been touched upon slightly in the broadsides topic, where it's more difficult to fully utilize all of the broadsides due to the fan shape. Rather than introducing all these new concepts, I think it's more important to look more closely at the existing concepts and refine them first. Solid content over lots of content.
[quote="Red-Rocket"]-Ok, excessive fights may be out, but fights lasting only 6 seconds was a real fun killer that people complained about in the beta
-boarding is fun, many people love the idea of boarding, im suprised at you most of all whyte-dragon for not liking boarding, your the one who does it the best. I would say flesh it out, and make killing marines harder (more health, less weapon damage and actual defense items and armor besides nano gloves)[/quote]
Firstly, I know a lot of this talk may not necessarily pertain more to the SC2 game than the standalone, but that's more because we don't have too many details regarding the standalone ATM. So, with that in mind...
I have never seen fights last 6 seconds.
I think you misunderstand what I see in infiltration then. Tossing marines on the enemy battlecruiser and saying 'everybody fight' is [i]not[/i] what I think is interesting about infiltration -- it's about subterfuge, sneaking around, and [i]avoiding[/i] a head on fight. And, personally, I don't any none of that carrying over properly the moment we push for this boarding concept that's been suggested. [i]Moreover[/i], this also causes a lot of issues with marine death and respawning -- not to mention balancing infiltration vs. boarding, and generally in my opinion just creates a lot of potentially messy issues in terms of evening out the two concepts to be individualistic.
It just seems weird to me that you'd essentially create a [i]necessity[/i] for boarding via this method. I understand you're trying to create allow a team to come back from lower resources, but I don't think this is it -- what this creates is a 'fall back' for a losing team to work with, but... if it's clearly designed just to give the losing team a chance by giving the [i]opportunity[/i] for the enemy to board, I see no reason why the winning side should even attempt to do so in the first place. They've dealt significant damage to the enemy, showing their upgrade superiority -- [i]why[/i] would they bother to dock, potentially risking their lead, when they're already clearly winning? And if you create the inverse situation where the losing side attempts to invade, they're in an inferior position due to the resources available -- hence you're only putting them [i]further[/i] at a disadvantage in that case.
I think what you should be more looking for is to directly create a way to more effectively utilize weapons to obtain a higher damage output. This has been touched upon slightly in the broadsides topic, where it's more difficult to fully utilize all of the broadsides due to the fan shape. Rather than introducing all these new concepts, I think it's more important to look more closely at the existing concepts and refine them first. Solid content over lots of content.