That doesn't mean that we can't get small ideas through. So let's focus on what we can get, and collect small improvements to the game.
I mainly wanted this thread to be a place where you can post your ideas about the game you have (dig up old ones if you want), that didn't warrant its own thread, but that you feel got a bit buried in a thread with a lot of other silly ideas and opinions of all the other stupid misled posters. I don't think there is such a thread already, is there? I didn't find any at least. Anyway, this one will be better!
I want to link all the ideas in the OP to give them exposure, and then we can discuss them and flame each other over how the other posters ideas can only be explained by severe brain dysfunction in the comments. Sounds good? To help me, maybe you can give a title to your suggestions, and then I'll just copy paste them into a spoiler here in the OP. Feel free to PM me if I miss your post for too long, and maybe even mods can help me out if I don't pay enough attention.
I'll add anything, but if you want your idea to be considered seriously, you may want to motivate a bit why you think it is a good idea. A typical setup would to
1) Explain problem
2) Introduce your idea
3) Explain how your idea solves the problem
4) any side effects?
But as you want. Just trying to help you guys convey your ideas to the rest of the community (and blizzard hopefully) in a good way.
The reason I make this thread, of course, is that I got a small idea myself, so I'll start with that as template, just to set the tone.
Curing ladder fear with default unranked mode
Cascade
+ Show Spoiler +
This is a (modified) comment from qxcs blog that didn't get enough exposure (imo).
The problem is that most people ("the casuals", which is not the typical active TL poster) don't really care much to be ranked at all on a server-wide scale. Achievements and sense of progress, yes. Ranked compared to rest of server: not really. They probably care whether they are better than their buddy, but that is a different question. While you know a lot of stuff about sc2, I am not sure you should be regarded as an expert on the casual non competetitive psyche. So let me give my view from within the casual player base, rather than above it.
This is done a bit too often, but anyway: let's compare to sc:bw!
A normal custom game in sc:bw wouldn't change any ranking or anything. It'd change your win/loss stats, but most casuals didn't care too much about that, as it wasn't very highlighted. While a 100-10 stat was something to brag about, people knew that it is about choosing your opponents as much as being good at the game.
People that wanted to compete on a ladder had to go through some extra hassle and get iccup or something, but that didn't put pressure on the casuals that probably didn't even know about iccup.
Sc2 on the other hand, ranks your when you go and play default games against other players, and throws your rank and league in your face over and over. It is also pretty accurate, and actually does measure your skill compared to other players pretty well. I think that alone is a big deterrent for most players, that get a too honest evaluation of their skill thrown at them without the player asking for it. It's pretty rude when you think about it socially. You come over to a friend to play some board game or something, and afterwards they tell you that you are in the bottom 20% of all players! I'm sure not encouraged to play with that friend again...
I think what should be done, is that the default PvP game mode should be "unranked", in the sense that it won't show your rank in any way. You can still get achievements for number of wins, and objective achievement independent of other players, such as chaining injects, spending quotient, APM, SPM, EAPM, average unspent, units built, nailing BOs and that kind of statistics. It'll still track your MMR (hidden) to give you even games, but that's it. There should not be any major consequences if you win or not: actually, I want to tone down the big "VICTORY" and "DEAFEAT" screens as well, and instead focus more on the players stats like APM, SQs and whatever. The player shouldn't be shamed for having played a better opponent.
Then there should be some pretty obscure setting that allows you to see your MMR somewhere, and why not your server-wide rank or quantile of the active players on the server, but it should be a subtly displayed number somewhere, not rubbed into your face as it is now. People that care about ranks (most on TL I assume) don't need more than a number in the corner, and don't mind switching a "show rank" switch once somewhere deep in the settings, while people that don't care about ranks aren't insulted as blatantly by the game and probably wont find (or even less flick) the switch before they are ready. Turning that setting on is the green light from the player to be evaluated, and it is then socially ok to (in a nice way) tell them that they are crap. Actually, you could even disable the switch until you have played 10 PvP games or something.
It's just basic social skills in the end... If you want new people to continue playing a game, don't keep telling them that they are crap unless they ask for an evaluation.
The problem is that most people ("the casuals", which is not the typical active TL poster) don't really care much to be ranked at all on a server-wide scale. Achievements and sense of progress, yes. Ranked compared to rest of server: not really. They probably care whether they are better than their buddy, but that is a different question. While you know a lot of stuff about sc2, I am not sure you should be regarded as an expert on the casual non competetitive psyche. So let me give my view from within the casual player base, rather than above it.
This is done a bit too often, but anyway: let's compare to sc:bw!
A normal custom game in sc:bw wouldn't change any ranking or anything. It'd change your win/loss stats, but most casuals didn't care too much about that, as it wasn't very highlighted. While a 100-10 stat was something to brag about, people knew that it is about choosing your opponents as much as being good at the game.
People that wanted to compete on a ladder had to go through some extra hassle and get iccup or something, but that didn't put pressure on the casuals that probably didn't even know about iccup.
Sc2 on the other hand, ranks your when you go and play default games against other players, and throws your rank and league in your face over and over. It is also pretty accurate, and actually does measure your skill compared to other players pretty well. I think that alone is a big deterrent for most players, that get a too honest evaluation of their skill thrown at them without the player asking for it. It's pretty rude when you think about it socially. You come over to a friend to play some board game or something, and afterwards they tell you that you are in the bottom 20% of all players! I'm sure not encouraged to play with that friend again...
I think what should be done, is that the default PvP game mode should be "unranked", in the sense that it won't show your rank in any way. You can still get achievements for number of wins, and objective achievement independent of other players, such as chaining injects, spending quotient, APM, SPM, EAPM, average unspent, units built, nailing BOs and that kind of statistics. It'll still track your MMR (hidden) to give you even games, but that's it. There should not be any major consequences if you win or not: actually, I want to tone down the big "VICTORY" and "DEAFEAT" screens as well, and instead focus more on the players stats like APM, SQs and whatever. The player shouldn't be shamed for having played a better opponent.
Then there should be some pretty obscure setting that allows you to see your MMR somewhere, and why not your server-wide rank or quantile of the active players on the server, but it should be a subtly displayed number somewhere, not rubbed into your face as it is now. People that care about ranks (most on TL I assume) don't need more than a number in the corner, and don't mind switching a "show rank" switch once somewhere deep in the settings, while people that don't care about ranks aren't insulted as blatantly by the game and probably wont find (or even less flick) the switch before they are ready. Turning that setting on is the green light from the player to be evaluated, and it is then socially ok to (in a nice way) tell them that they are crap. Actually, you could even disable the switch until you have played 10 PvP games or something.
It's just basic social skills in the end... If you want new people to continue playing a game, don't keep telling them that they are crap unless they ask for an evaluation.
bring back the ability to join 'open games'
worosei
+ Show Spoiler +
i miss just being able to jump into a BGH or Fastest game knowing i'll get a game pretty instantly. I dont want to be 'made host' or anything like that.
i like being able to find some random game and fill a slot i'd not have known what game that was.
i like being able to find some random game and fill a slot i'd not have known what game that was.
Ditch barcodes
fruity.
+ Show Spoiler +
Ditch barcodes. Just get rid of them already. Hackers seem to hide behind them, that's fair to say right? At least that's the impression I get from the scanning the hacker thread.
If pro's want anonymity, a system could be implemented to allow them to change names for free on a regular basis. For example, you get into challenger in wcs you can have free regular name changes. Players on a Proleague team too, or code A.
Why can't we get a name to know who we're playing? 'OH it's this guy, seem to recall he cheeses', etc etc It works this way at the pro level - playing Has - look for cheese! Can't find it look harder!
This could be achieved for example by not allowing strings of lowercase L's, uppercase i's when players create or change their ingame name.
If pro's want anonymity, a system could be implemented to allow them to change names for free on a regular basis. For example, you get into challenger in wcs you can have free regular name changes. Players on a Proleague team too, or code A.
Why can't we get a name to know who we're playing? 'OH it's this guy, seem to recall he cheeses', etc etc It works this way at the pro level - playing Has - look for cheese! Can't find it look harder!
This could be achieved for example by not allowing strings of lowercase L's, uppercase i's when players create or change their ingame name.
chat and clan suggestions
wUndertUnge
+ Show Spoiler +
One big argument I keep bringing up in my posts regarding non-game UI for LOTV is the need for focus. Yes, players want freedom, and the challenge for Blizz is giving the casual to pro player base the perfect meld of said freedom and focus. Here are a few more ideas that I think can help.
No more than 3 chatroom windows open at one time. 1. General - 2. Party/Custom Chatroom - 3. Lounge.
1. General is, well, general. This changes once you've done your placements for 1v1. General is now Division Chat, your cadre of 100 - 150 competitors on the ladder. This is a permanent auto-populate for when you log in to SC2, unless you /leave the General Chat
2. Next is Party & IM chat. If a player wants a no-frills, PM experience, let them start one with that person; however, give it a timer where it closes or at least an unobtrusive presence in the UI design. This could even integrate within and disappear from the General/Chat window
Party chat, however, should be its own window. A group of people getting together for a specific game-centric purpose, like Archon Mode or 3v3, should have the option for a dedicated chat room. Only one party at a time, just like we have now
3. Last is the Lounge. The Lounge would be an offshoot of the Clan, removing the need for Groups. Groups in HOTS are a hot mess! Other than Adopt-a-Noob, TL or Reddit (with the latter two by the way nearly being dead all the time - if I want TL, I'll just go to TL) groups, it's a barren wasteland. This is one communication UI design element that I think could really make SC2 flourish.
Clans should be the primary group event in SC2. Teams in the WCS and the game in general are part of the SC2 story - why can't it be that way for SC2 player? Teamliquid. Root. Then there's Adopt-a-Noob, Day[9], GSL, DreamHack, ESL, The Gentleman's Crew (mine). From the pro to the casual, clans in LOTV can offer something SC2 has never offered them before: a utility to build community.
The 3rd party tournament holders have an administrative quarters from which they can operate, in game. This auto-populates at login, too, but only Clan Members have access to exclusive Clan Chat. For everyone else, there's the Lounge.
The Lounge is run and moderated by Clan Members. They can open it to the general population, or they can lock it down with a temporary password, which would be helpful for event organizers (remember the troll debacles during live events like DreamHack?). Clans could kick rabble rousers and people who misbehave. Imagine a "recruits" mode, that sends toasts to players who opt-in for these announcements? Imagine a clan ladder, both intra- and extra- each season. And there are many more things to work off this structure I'm sure...
I haven't quite thought of the logistics of having only 3 windows open and hanging out in a lounge. I don't think it should supersede general or clan chat, but maybe party chat? There are a lot of things to think about here.
There are more ideas running through my head about this, and there'll all for the love of the game and community. And let's face it, community is a major drawing point to this game. And a big part of that (part of a bigger post) is other ways of bringing the community together in game , but I think these suggestions will help.
Remember, freedom and focus!
Thanks, Blizz. I love this game. Now make it as beautiful and awesome as you can.
No more than 3 chatroom windows open at one time. 1. General - 2. Party/Custom Chatroom - 3. Lounge.
1. General is, well, general. This changes once you've done your placements for 1v1. General is now Division Chat, your cadre of 100 - 150 competitors on the ladder. This is a permanent auto-populate for when you log in to SC2, unless you /leave the General Chat
2. Next is Party & IM chat. If a player wants a no-frills, PM experience, let them start one with that person; however, give it a timer where it closes or at least an unobtrusive presence in the UI design. This could even integrate within and disappear from the General/Chat window
Party chat, however, should be its own window. A group of people getting together for a specific game-centric purpose, like Archon Mode or 3v3, should have the option for a dedicated chat room. Only one party at a time, just like we have now
3. Last is the Lounge. The Lounge would be an offshoot of the Clan, removing the need for Groups. Groups in HOTS are a hot mess! Other than Adopt-a-Noob, TL or Reddit (with the latter two by the way nearly being dead all the time - if I want TL, I'll just go to TL) groups, it's a barren wasteland. This is one communication UI design element that I think could really make SC2 flourish.
Clans should be the primary group event in SC2. Teams in the WCS and the game in general are part of the SC2 story - why can't it be that way for SC2 player? Teamliquid. Root. Then there's Adopt-a-Noob, Day[9], GSL, DreamHack, ESL, The Gentleman's Crew (mine). From the pro to the casual, clans in LOTV can offer something SC2 has never offered them before: a utility to build community.
The 3rd party tournament holders have an administrative quarters from which they can operate, in game. This auto-populates at login, too, but only Clan Members have access to exclusive Clan Chat. For everyone else, there's the Lounge.
The Lounge is run and moderated by Clan Members. They can open it to the general population, or they can lock it down with a temporary password, which would be helpful for event organizers (remember the troll debacles during live events like DreamHack?). Clans could kick rabble rousers and people who misbehave. Imagine a "recruits" mode, that sends toasts to players who opt-in for these announcements? Imagine a clan ladder, both intra- and extra- each season. And there are many more things to work off this structure I'm sure...
I haven't quite thought of the logistics of having only 3 windows open and hanging out in a lounge. I don't think it should supersede general or clan chat, but maybe party chat? There are a lot of things to think about here.
There are more ideas running through my head about this, and there'll all for the love of the game and community. And let's face it, community is a major drawing point to this game. And a big part of that (part of a bigger post) is other ways of bringing the community together in game , but I think these suggestions will help.
Remember, freedom and focus!
Thanks, Blizz. I love this game. Now make it as beautiful and awesome as you can.
pick your colour
summerloud
+ Show Spoiler +
give players the ability to pick a color, thats a feature thats long overdue
even war3 had it... i want to play as pink again!
even war3 had it... i want to play as pink again!
mixed suggestions
DinoMight
+ Show Spoiler +
DINOMIGHT's LIST OF GRIEVANCES (actual game design/balance aside)
1) I want an option to see my MMR. I don't care if it hurts some people's feelings. Have it disabled by default. I am very competitive and I play this game seriously and I want to know if I'm doing better or worse.
2) Better statistics, so I don't have to use something like SC2 gears. I want to be able to click on a player and see my win percentage against him or something. Something more than just the basic wins/losses by matchup and map.
3) Make replays easier to find. Maybe indicate the matchup, map, and who won/lost and have filters available to better sort them. Currently it's a pain in the ass. If you go into a replay and it's the wrong one, you need to re-filter to 1v1 and then try to find where you last were. It happens often that I accidentally go into the same wrong replay a few times and get frustrated.
4) FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, please put a little more work/effort into 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 maps. I know the game can't be fully balanced around anything more than 1v1, but some of these maps are downright unplayable for certain race combos. For example, Protoss Zerg vs Double Zerg on a map with shared bases, a ginormous ramp, and far away expansions is fucking unplayable.
5) Minimap.... I want to be able to draw arrows and ping stuff like in Dota 2 when I'm playing team games or observing a game. That feature is actually extremely useful when you're coordinating strategy and engagements.
and FINALLY:
6) 2v2+ teams should not have their own MMR to determine placement. It's fucking retarded that me and my friend in Masters have to play through dozens and dozens of Bronze league players just to get to a point where we get competitive 2v2 games. It's not fun for us, or for the Bronzies that we are stomping into the ground. THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME you start a new 2v2 team and is ruining the experience for the most casual players... THE ONES in BROZNE playing 2v2....
EDIT -
7) And yes, I do feel sad when I don't have my orange. Please let me be orange in a game. I don't care if the opponent sees me as Orange or Red/Blue. But I want to be Orange. It makes me happy. Please allow me to select my orange.
1) I want an option to see my MMR. I don't care if it hurts some people's feelings. Have it disabled by default. I am very competitive and I play this game seriously and I want to know if I'm doing better or worse.
2) Better statistics, so I don't have to use something like SC2 gears. I want to be able to click on a player and see my win percentage against him or something. Something more than just the basic wins/losses by matchup and map.
3) Make replays easier to find. Maybe indicate the matchup, map, and who won/lost and have filters available to better sort them. Currently it's a pain in the ass. If you go into a replay and it's the wrong one, you need to re-filter to 1v1 and then try to find where you last were. It happens often that I accidentally go into the same wrong replay a few times and get frustrated.
4) FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, please put a little more work/effort into 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 maps. I know the game can't be fully balanced around anything more than 1v1, but some of these maps are downright unplayable for certain race combos. For example, Protoss Zerg vs Double Zerg on a map with shared bases, a ginormous ramp, and far away expansions is fucking unplayable.
5) Minimap.... I want to be able to draw arrows and ping stuff like in Dota 2 when I'm playing team games or observing a game. That feature is actually extremely useful when you're coordinating strategy and engagements.
and FINALLY:
6) 2v2+ teams should not have their own MMR to determine placement. It's fucking retarded that me and my friend in Masters have to play through dozens and dozens of Bronze league players just to get to a point where we get competitive 2v2 games. It's not fun for us, or for the Bronzies that we are stomping into the ground. THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME you start a new 2v2 team and is ruining the experience for the most casual players... THE ONES in BROZNE playing 2v2....
EDIT -
7) And yes, I do feel sad when I don't have my orange. Please let me be orange in a game. I don't care if the opponent sees me as Orange or Red/Blue. But I want to be Orange. It makes me happy. Please allow me to select my orange.
mixed zerg suggestions
Grumbels
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm not really expecting any of this to be in the game, but I had various ideas to make zerg ..more complicated, but I think the changes are all quite intuitive and might have healthy gameplay effects. They're mostly based on design concerns with zerg, especially the larva mechanic.
I wasn't sure how to format this, so I'll just start listing the suggestions.
Larva cap increased from three to four and five when upgrading to a Lair and a Hive:
- there is no real gameplay justification here, but I thought it would make sense that bigger buildings could maintain more larva. It's also a slight production boost for teching zerg players, given that it's not always ideal that zerg production is tied up in expansions, but I don't suspect this will have a noticeable effect. The larva generation speed is still the same after all.
Broodling spawn upon death increased from nine to some other number when upgrading to a Lair and a Hive:
- you might not know this: when ordinary zerg buildings die they spawn only six broodlings, but the hatchery will spawn nine of them. The only zerg building where spawning broodlings are significant for balance might be the hatchery, which is why I'm hesitant to change the numbers from 9/9/9 to something like 6/8/10, however increasing it to 9/12/15 seems excessively large. Maybe 8/10/12 is okay? The idea again is to make the Lair and Hive more imposing. The gameplay justification isn't really there, but at least I don't think it would negatively affect the game. You could also argue that killing a Hive is already important enough that you shouldn't mind losing your marines to broodlings that spawn and that this slightly compensates the zerg, but in practice I don't think it will be that noticeable.
Zergling and ultralisk egg models changed:
- I thought that since one egg houses two zerglings it could have a different graphic of a composite of two smaller eggs. The ultralisk could have a larger egg. The main justification here is that visually it looks more intuitive, but this one has significant gameplay effects: you can't scout zerg production very well because seeing eggs in production tells you nothing. However, if you scout a terran you can see any number of barracks with add-ons producing something and this gives you more information. Furthermore, because of inject larva all the eggs tend to hatch at once and it's easy to miss this. If you could tell the difference between zerglings and drones in production at a glance then early game ZvZ might not be as volatile.
The ultralisk egg idea is to help you narrow down choices even more, because it helps you distinguish between things like ultralisks and mutalisks in production, which all require specific preparation.
Another argument is that there is precedent for this, because every zerg morph has its own cocoon model.
Larva will start to slowly die off past seven larva:
- Currently there is a cap of 19 larva that you can build up per hatchery. There was an article that showed that top players stop injecting when reaching the supply cap I guess since they had plenty of larva anyway and they had other priorities. There are also some powerful tech switches you can execute in the late-game because of your larva reserves. If as a terran or protoss you are not using your production then it's wasted, but zerg has the option to store production capability.
I think it would make sense if for zerg to utilize this option they would at least have to be diligent in maintaining injects, because the larva would die unused if you were not either building units or restoring the larva via injects. The number seven is chosen as to not interfere in normal gameplay where you commonly have seven larva max.
Creep tumor sight range reduced from eleven to nine:
- Sight range differs a lot between units. SCV's have only 8 range, marines have 9, thors have 11 and tempests have 12. Creep tumors have 11. I'm not sure why this value is this high, but it gives zerg quite amazing map vision seemingly beyond what you should expect from a free burrowed unit. The creep tumor spawns creep with a radius of ten, which might explain its sight range, but I don't think it's a good justification given the other factors to consider.
Hive requirements changed from Infestation Pit to any single one of the following: Spire, Infestation Pit, Hydralisk Den:
- This is mainly in response to the increasing number of units in the game, where having to build an Infestation Pit to have access to various T3 units and upgrades is restrictive because you're already focusing on, say, mutalisks and lurkers. I thought having a prerequisite that was variable would be a cool innovation so that you could still unlock new tech paths without being forced into some other tech you have no use for. It should be the case that if you want to build infestors you should have to actually commit to infestor tech, not build them as an afterthought because you have the building anyway. This change will also help with giving zerg easier access to T3 upgrades.
Spire changes:
- The spire takes 100 seconds to build, which dates to Brood War where you could save up larva and kill people with quick mutalisk tech. The 100 seconds gives you time to prepare. However, the build time is so long that it stands in contrast with the common 60 seconds build time of similar buildings. If mutalisks had to get an upgrade before being very useful this would allow the spire build time to be normalized. You would have mutalisks more quickly instead of having to wait, and your opponent would have to react to weaker mutalisks earlier which makes for smoother transition into anti-mutalisk defense. Of course the specific upgrade and build time would have to be decided based on testing, but I think it can be changed without affecting the game balance too much.
This is about as far as I can go without suggesting anything radical that will be a redesign of the race, so I'll end here.
I wasn't sure how to format this, so I'll just start listing the suggestions.
Larva cap increased from three to four and five when upgrading to a Lair and a Hive:
- there is no real gameplay justification here, but I thought it would make sense that bigger buildings could maintain more larva. It's also a slight production boost for teching zerg players, given that it's not always ideal that zerg production is tied up in expansions, but I don't suspect this will have a noticeable effect. The larva generation speed is still the same after all.
Broodling spawn upon death increased from nine to some other number when upgrading to a Lair and a Hive:
- you might not know this: when ordinary zerg buildings die they spawn only six broodlings, but the hatchery will spawn nine of them. The only zerg building where spawning broodlings are significant for balance might be the hatchery, which is why I'm hesitant to change the numbers from 9/9/9 to something like 6/8/10, however increasing it to 9/12/15 seems excessively large. Maybe 8/10/12 is okay? The idea again is to make the Lair and Hive more imposing. The gameplay justification isn't really there, but at least I don't think it would negatively affect the game. You could also argue that killing a Hive is already important enough that you shouldn't mind losing your marines to broodlings that spawn and that this slightly compensates the zerg, but in practice I don't think it will be that noticeable.
Zergling and ultralisk egg models changed:
- I thought that since one egg houses two zerglings it could have a different graphic of a composite of two smaller eggs. The ultralisk could have a larger egg. The main justification here is that visually it looks more intuitive, but this one has significant gameplay effects: you can't scout zerg production very well because seeing eggs in production tells you nothing. However, if you scout a terran you can see any number of barracks with add-ons producing something and this gives you more information. Furthermore, because of inject larva all the eggs tend to hatch at once and it's easy to miss this. If you could tell the difference between zerglings and drones in production at a glance then early game ZvZ might not be as volatile.
The ultralisk egg idea is to help you narrow down choices even more, because it helps you distinguish between things like ultralisks and mutalisks in production, which all require specific preparation.
Another argument is that there is precedent for this, because every zerg morph has its own cocoon model.
Larva will start to slowly die off past seven larva:
- Currently there is a cap of 19 larva that you can build up per hatchery. There was an article that showed that top players stop injecting when reaching the supply cap I guess since they had plenty of larva anyway and they had other priorities. There are also some powerful tech switches you can execute in the late-game because of your larva reserves. If as a terran or protoss you are not using your production then it's wasted, but zerg has the option to store production capability.
I think it would make sense if for zerg to utilize this option they would at least have to be diligent in maintaining injects, because the larva would die unused if you were not either building units or restoring the larva via injects. The number seven is chosen as to not interfere in normal gameplay where you commonly have seven larva max.
Creep tumor sight range reduced from eleven to nine:
- Sight range differs a lot between units. SCV's have only 8 range, marines have 9, thors have 11 and tempests have 12. Creep tumors have 11. I'm not sure why this value is this high, but it gives zerg quite amazing map vision seemingly beyond what you should expect from a free burrowed unit. The creep tumor spawns creep with a radius of ten, which might explain its sight range, but I don't think it's a good justification given the other factors to consider.
Hive requirements changed from Infestation Pit to any single one of the following: Spire, Infestation Pit, Hydralisk Den:
- This is mainly in response to the increasing number of units in the game, where having to build an Infestation Pit to have access to various T3 units and upgrades is restrictive because you're already focusing on, say, mutalisks and lurkers. I thought having a prerequisite that was variable would be a cool innovation so that you could still unlock new tech paths without being forced into some other tech you have no use for. It should be the case that if you want to build infestors you should have to actually commit to infestor tech, not build them as an afterthought because you have the building anyway. This change will also help with giving zerg easier access to T3 upgrades.
Spire changes:
- The spire takes 100 seconds to build, which dates to Brood War where you could save up larva and kill people with quick mutalisk tech. The 100 seconds gives you time to prepare. However, the build time is so long that it stands in contrast with the common 60 seconds build time of similar buildings. If mutalisks had to get an upgrade before being very useful this would allow the spire build time to be normalized. You would have mutalisks more quickly instead of having to wait, and your opponent would have to react to weaker mutalisks earlier which makes for smoother transition into anti-mutalisk defense. Of course the specific upgrade and build time would have to be decided based on testing, but I think it can be changed without affecting the game balance too much.
This is about as far as I can go without suggesting anything radical that will be a redesign of the race, so I'll end here.
load from replay
The_Masked_Shrimp
+ Show Spoiler +
Would be nice to be able to load a replay, pick a player, and play solo in place of that player while still seeing everything he did in real time (like ghosts in race games when you try to beat a previous record you can see the ghost car of that record while doing the race). It would look like when you give the command to build a building and it appears in green until it starts to be built, the ghost units andb uilding of the replay could look like that but in blue for example.
I think it would be very helpfull to practice build order and also be able to compare in real time the differences when you deviate from the original.
I am not sure if it is possible to do such a thing with arcade mods?
I think it would be very helpfull to practice build order and also be able to compare in real time the differences when you deviate from the original.
I am not sure if it is possible to do such a thing with arcade mods?
skins
My_Fake_Plastic_Luv
+ Show Spoiler +
SKINs plus unit Customization!
Plus they should free up your account so you can customize your home page/matchmaking etc. .................reason: people dig this/ people love to be unique. There are a ton of LOL players who are just in for the skins and personalization.
Plus they should free up your account so you can customize your home page/matchmaking etc. .................reason: people dig this/ people love to be unique. There are a ton of LOL players who are just in for the skins and personalization.
economy change
frostalgia
+ Show Spoiler +
I like the idea for this thread very much. Hopefully Blizzard checks this out if they're ever curious about some more ideas that the community would like to see.
I've been pushing all over TL, reddit and the bnet forums for a simple Economy change that is easily recognizable to the masses, yet still very complex in the effect it brings to the game. I was going to make my own TL thread, but figured there's alread enough of them about the Economy.. however, I strongly believe getting the Economy right is still a goal Blizzard should have in mind, and continually question whether or not they have achieved while we're in beta. After that, we're stuck with it forever.
Instead of 12 workers to start, how about 9 workers.. but 200 minerals rather than 50.
The reasoning is that it brings back some cheese builds and makes early game pressure more effective again, but not as effective as before. It also still advances the game to the point right where it starts getting interesting. Giving players a choice of what to do with 200 minerals right when they have 9 workers could make for some interesting situations very early on in all matchups.
Instead of 8 mineral patches per base with 4 of them at 60%, how about 6 patches per base.. all with an even amount of minerals. (Maybe 1600/patch)
The reasoning is that players will stay on bases longer, while still expanding faster.. which will actually spread out the battlefield. Right now, players move onto the next base so fast that they don't actually take more bases, as they still achieve a similar income with the same amount of harvesters per base. They expand faster, but they leave bases behind faster as well.
Here's hoping for more iterations of stuff that feels right while we're still in beta!
I've been pushing all over TL, reddit and the bnet forums for a simple Economy change that is easily recognizable to the masses, yet still very complex in the effect it brings to the game. I was going to make my own TL thread, but figured there's alread enough of them about the Economy.. however, I strongly believe getting the Economy right is still a goal Blizzard should have in mind, and continually question whether or not they have achieved while we're in beta. After that, we're stuck with it forever.
Instead of 12 workers to start, how about 9 workers.. but 200 minerals rather than 50.
The reasoning is that it brings back some cheese builds and makes early game pressure more effective again, but not as effective as before. It also still advances the game to the point right where it starts getting interesting. Giving players a choice of what to do with 200 minerals right when they have 9 workers could make for some interesting situations very early on in all matchups.
Instead of 8 mineral patches per base with 4 of them at 60%, how about 6 patches per base.. all with an even amount of minerals. (Maybe 1600/patch)
The reasoning is that players will stay on bases longer, while still expanding faster.. which will actually spread out the battlefield. Right now, players move onto the next base so fast that they don't actually take more bases, as they still achieve a similar income with the same amount of harvesters per base. They expand faster, but they leave bases behind faster as well.
Here's hoping for more iterations of stuff that feels right while we're still in beta!
remove population cap
PunkSkeleton
+ Show Spoiler +
First of all I'd like to stress out that I'm at most a casual player now. I'm more interested in motorsport and hardcore sim racing than in SC now. I've been playing since BW came out, never very seriously but I do watch pro games (when non-koreans are playing) occasionally.
What bothers me for those 15 years is a population cap. While in BW it was much less important, since with selection limited to 12 units and less supply per unit it was a very rare scenario to reach it. But in SC2 it happens very often. Even for me, in my casual games.
The existance of pop cap is bad. It leads to extremely boring games where both players circle each other with maxed out army. It is so boring that I totally stopped following the scene for almost 3 years. It also drags out games because it limits the amount of workers you can build. It's counter intuitive for the viewer and for the casual player.
While removing the cap or increasing it significantly would probably force some other changes in game balance it would certainly freshen up the game.
I agree that the cap adds another element of strategy to the game but it is a bad element. Bad for the viewers, bad for the players.
What bothers me for those 15 years is a population cap. While in BW it was much less important, since with selection limited to 12 units and less supply per unit it was a very rare scenario to reach it. But in SC2 it happens very often. Even for me, in my casual games.
The existance of pop cap is bad. It leads to extremely boring games where both players circle each other with maxed out army. It is so boring that I totally stopped following the scene for almost 3 years. It also drags out games because it limits the amount of workers you can build. It's counter intuitive for the viewer and for the casual player.
While removing the cap or increasing it significantly would probably force some other changes in game balance it would certainly freshen up the game.
I agree that the cap adds another element of strategy to the game but it is a bad element. Bad for the viewers, bad for the players.
mixed suggestions
helpman176
+ Show Spoiler +
- Raise the supply cap to 250
- For casuals: The option to let AI automate your economy
- Give each unit a tiny bit more space to avoid clumping
- For casuals: Allow hero units from the campaigns
- For casuals: The option to let AI automate your economy
- Give each unit a tiny bit more space to avoid clumping
- For casuals: Allow hero units from the campaigns
oracle remake
Clear World
+ Show Spoiler +
My Small idea,
Orcale Pulsar Beam no longer deals massive damage to light units. instead, after 2 second of channeling on a target (maybe increase tether range to like 8), immoblize the target fro like 30 seconds.
Orcale Pulsar Beam no longer deals massive damage to light units. instead, after 2 second of channeling on a target (maybe increase tether range to like 8), immoblize the target fro like 30 seconds.
Separate MMR per race
IntoTheheart
+ Show Spoiler +
Separate MMR per race.
If I wanna ladder as Zerg, I should have an MMR for that.
But if I wanna switch races to Terran, I'd have to play from my Zerg MMR, which might be annoying if I have a higher Zerg playskill than Terran.
If I wanna ladder as Zerg, I should have an MMR for that.
But if I wanna switch races to Terran, I'd have to play from my Zerg MMR, which might be annoying if I have a higher Zerg playskill than Terran.
A key to unbind units from controls group
Vanadiel
+ Show Spoiler +
Nice topic, my suggestion: A key to unbind units from controls group.
It is a rather simple request, that could improve the game in my opinion.
Right now, if you want to remove units from control groups, you have to select your control group, click on each units you want to remove and re-create an other control group to override the initial one. I find it not intuitive and encourage you to keep all your units together, especially for zerg player that add units in control groups from the eggs.
What I suggest is really simple, it would be just one key that unbind the selected units from any control group. so you select the units, press the "unbind" command and they will be removed from any control groups. That would be very helpful to set up different pack of units and attack at multiple place, to remove morphing baneling from control groups... etc
It is a rather simple request, that could improve the game in my opinion.
Right now, if you want to remove units from control groups, you have to select your control group, click on each units you want to remove and re-create an other control group to override the initial one. I find it not intuitive and encourage you to keep all your units together, especially for zerg player that add units in control groups from the eggs.
What I suggest is really simple, it would be just one key that unbind the selected units from any control group. so you select the units, press the "unbind" command and they will be removed from any control groups. That would be very helpful to set up different pack of units and attack at multiple place, to remove morphing baneling from control groups... etc
attack/move rally toggle
bigbadgreen
+ Show Spoiler +
This suggestion applies more to zerg but could be implemented for all races. I wish there was a way to toggle units coming out of production to be in either move command or attack move command. I don't know how many times I've seen zerg units hatching and running to rally points when a base is being attacked, to just die because they are on move command. This applies especially to later game lings trying to defend. I think it would be nice to have hatching units be on attack move to the rally point. I would make it a toggled ability with move command because there are times when you want to counter and run by enemy units. It would be easy to add the command to any main building.
thinner life bars
BluzMan
+ Show Spoiler +
For the love of science, make alternative life bars for units. Thinner ones that don't obstruct all the view and without the stupid squares.
customisable UI
Bastinian
+ Show Spoiler +
Add option to change UI and increase size of the minimap
I would really like this option, because it would allow players to customize their UI like they customize hotkeys for example! It just makes things easier for some players. I would for example move resources information from upper right corner to just above the map, so that I can easily look on both map and resources without having to look all over my screen and usually missing stuff for no reason...
Also I think minimap size change option would be good because current minimap is small for my screen, and I usually miss stuff on it like drops because the dot showing it is too small... Similar options for minimap changes are in World of Tanks, where you could change it...
I would really like this option, because it would allow players to customize their UI like they customize hotkeys for example! It just makes things easier for some players. I would for example move resources information from upper right corner to just above the map, so that I can easily look on both map and resources without having to look all over my screen and usually missing stuff for no reason...
Also I think minimap size change option would be good because current minimap is small for my screen, and I usually miss stuff on it like drops because the dot showing it is too small... Similar options for minimap changes are in World of Tanks, where you could change it...