| Meteora.GB Canada. June 16 2012 02:00. Posts 2161 | Profile Blog # |
| Sounds really cool. Its not like Blizzard never tried fiddling around with line of sight before. Medics had the blind ability that made a unit's vision rendered to one, I don't see how we can't make a new ability around line of sight. |
| |
|
| johnny123 June 16 2012 02:05. Posts 485 | Profile # |
| i prefer the warhound. This line of sight thing is way to gimmicky. |
| | Favorite players,Stephano/MVP/Nestea/Gumiho/Life/Jaedong/MMA |  |
|
|
| WigglingSquid June 16 2012 02:07. Posts 3262 | Profile # |
| Interesting idea. I hope it'll be evaluated by someone at Blizzard. |
|
|
| Aeroplaneoverthesea United Kingdom. June 16 2012 02:10. Posts 1671 | Profile # |
I think it's a lot more important to decide if something is a 'cool' or 'fun' idea and then work out balancing later.
Anytime you put a new ability/unit into the game it will obviously alter balance, that shouldn't rule it out unless it becomes completely unbalancable or just doesn't work later down the line (as blizzard clearly found with the shredder and replicator).Last edit: 2012-06-16 02:11:02 |
| |
|
| Apolo Portugal. June 16 2012 02:12. Posts 1213 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 17:58 Woizit wrote:
Interesting idea, but I see quickly see 2 big problems with it.
1. It's the same functionality as a short-term cloak.
2. It's difficult to represent it visually to the spectator. It either obscures the view of the entire screen, or it affecting the vision of only 1 side can make it confusing to a viewer.
It'll require quite some tweaking, but because of especially point 2, I see it difficult to be put in.
Then explain me how the viewer is confused when a unit goes behind the smokes on the back of the bases on metalopolis, or the high grass on lost temple.
|
| |
|
| mbr2321 United States. June 16 2012 02:20. Posts 908 | Profile Blog # |
| good god this is a phenomenal idea! balancing costs of the upgrade, cd, etc would be extremely difficult thought. I also think it's a little much giving it to siege-tanks--> as a meching player, my army is basically 70% siege tanks most of the time. Maybe it would work better as an orbital command spell. that way players would have to decide whether or not to spend a mule on it. |
| | ~~Treating eSports as a social science since 2011~~ Credo: "The system is never wrong"-- Day9 Daily #400 Part 3 |  |
|
|
| CyDe United States. June 16 2012 02:24. Posts 999 | Profile Blog # |
| This is fantastic, it's a new idea and it's not gimmicky! Maybe Blizz should start talking to you haha. And not only that, but it allows for very interesting engagements, and new kids of micro. Goddamn what a good idea. Gogo! |
| | youtube.com/GamingCyDe-- SC2, BF3, whatever else strikes my fancy |
|
|
| Najda United States. June 16 2012 02:29. Posts 1772 | Profile Blog # |
On June 16 2012 02:12 Apolo wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 17:58 Woizit wrote:
Interesting idea, but I see quickly see 2 big problems with it.
1. It's the same functionality as a short-term cloak.
2. It's difficult to represent it visually to the spectator. It either obscures the view of the entire screen, or it affecting the vision of only 1 side can make it confusing to a viewer.
It'll require quite some tweaking, but because of especially point 2, I see it difficult to be put in.
Then explain me how the viewer is confused when a unit goes behind the smokes on the back of the bases on metalopolis, or the high grass on lost temple.
That is a much smaller scale thing and is therefore easier to understand (usually just involving 2 or 3 units). When it's entire armies fighting each other it's hard to tell exactly what they see, and they might have units to the side that can see around it without the spectators noticing that. It becomes a lot more "I wonder if he can see it." |
| | "Admit your flaws, admire your weakness, hone your imperfections – then may you address your desires." — Paul Crik | |
|
|
| BraneSC2 United States. June 16 2012 02:40. Posts 118 | Profile # |
| Interesting idea, but I feel like the concept should be reworked a little if it were to be legitimate. |
| | No fighting in the war room! |  |
|
|
| CanadianSCgamer Canada. June 16 2012 02:47. Posts 64 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 02:29 Najda wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 02:12 Apolo wrote:
On June 15 2012 17:58 Woizit wrote:
Interesting idea, but I see quickly see 2 big problems with it.
1. It's the same functionality as a short-term cloak.
2. It's difficult to represent it visually to the spectator. It either obscures the view of the entire screen, or it affecting the vision of only 1 side can make it confusing to a viewer.
It'll require quite some tweaking, but because of especially point 2, I see it difficult to be put in.
Then explain me how the viewer is confused when a unit goes behind the smokes on the back of the bases on metalopolis, or the high grass on lost temple.
That is a much smaller scale thing and is therefore easier to understand (usually just involving 2 or 3 units). When it's entire armies fighting each other it's hard to tell exactly what they see, and they might have units to the side that can see around it without the spectators noticing that. It becomes a lot more "I wonder if he can see it."
On the battlefield, the purpose of smoke is to confuse and disorient the enemy. But for Observers or Spectators, everything should be as clear as day.
Spectators or players would not have any trouble wondering if the unit can be seen through the smoke for a very simple reason: that unit will be shot at if it is seen and not shot at if it is not, even though it is already in range of another enemy unit. |
|
|
| CounterOrder Canada. June 16 2012 03:22. Posts 446 | Profile # |
So baiting scans out of T is useless? You guys talk like T has unlimited scans. This is actually a good idea.
|
| |
|
| Thrombozyt Germany. June 16 2012 03:34. Posts 1262 | Profile Blog # |
On June 16 2012 03:22 CounterOrder wrote:
So baiting scans out of T is useless? You guys talk like T has unlimited scans. This is actually a good idea.
Of course Terran has unlimeted scans, that's why they have the best scouting of all races and cloaked units are irrelevant against them.
Also each scan automatically reveals the complete opponent tech and does in NO WAY interfere with the MULE, which in itself means terran needs SCVs only for gas and making buildings. |
| |
|
| Seam United States. June 16 2012 03:52. Posts 1086 | Profile Blog # |
I think overall, it's kinda useless...on the tank at least.
The only race I could see it being effective in the way you want it is zerg. The main reason is because Terran and Protoss will generally have air units out by the time you get it(T- Medivac and Viking, P- Observer) which completely nullifies it.
I feel it'd be like highground. Powerful in the early game, but almost completely useless later. |
| | I only needed one probe to take down idra. I had to upgrade to a zealot for strelok. - Liquid`Tyler |  |
|
|
| ensign_lee United States. June 16 2012 03:52. Posts 1017 | Profile # |
This is an amazing idea. Kudos to you OP. Well thought out and well explained.
And it would add some interesting depth to gameplay.Last edit: 2012-06-16 03:53:21 |
|
|
| Xapti Canada. June 16 2012 05:32. Posts 2182 | Profile # |
The problem with the sugested ability is that I don't see any use for it aside from countering siege tanks in TvT (which can still be countered by radar tower and/or scanner sweep, let alone vikings or other air)
The other uses were wrong and/or flawed. The defensive smoke screen vs protoss would be at worst suidical, and at best be pretty pointless.
Case 1 where terran has sight over the smoke screen, he would need to hold fire for the protoss army to get to the tanks without being alerted that they're there, an ability I don't think siege tanks have.
Case 2 where terran doesn't have sight over the smoke screen — the protoss gains 2 advantages: 1 they won't be taking any hits before they pass the screen, 2. if they decide to retreat, they'll stop getting hit once they cross the smoke screen again (unless they're scanned I guess)
I think smoke screen would be most useful for zerg versus terran, with the only problem still being scanner sweep, radar tower, or medivacs nullifying it rather easily.
I can't really think of any particularly good uses for obscuring abilities like this, even if the concept is good, mostly due to the way the game mechanics work.Last edit: 2012-06-16 05:33:49 |
| | "Then he told me to tell you that he wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire" — "Well, you tell him that I said that I wouldn't piss on him if he was on Jeopardy!" |
|
|
| RavenLoud Canada. June 16 2012 05:41. Posts 1069 | Profile # |
I support this idea, it sounds cool enough to at least give it a try. Did you post this on the bnet forums?
Maybe it could be given to the warhound or some other unit instead instead. |
| |
|
| ReketSomething United States. June 16 2012 05:42. Posts 4012 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 17:51 Kich wrote:
I voted awesome, I enjoyed the presentation of this. Though I don't believe that specific ability should be used, I wasn't going to go so far as to say that the idea was bad. I'm not sure if the tank is the proper unit, since you turn what should essentially be a less micro intensive unit into a more micro intensive unit and it may just allow the tank to do too much; it already has absurd single target dps and massive range / burst / aoe damage.
I feel like the Reaper would be good for this, forcing troop diversity and holding up barracks build times / research in compensation for a rather powerful ability for bio (mech doesn't really care about this I don't think).
I agree, this should be on the reaper! |
| | I love Jaedong! :3 |  |
|
|
| SolidMoose United States. June 16 2012 05:48. Posts 1103 | Profile # |
| I read the response about the air superiority and this is meant to break siege lines. But that means only the person who has air superiority can utilize this ability. You're basically giving a player who already has an advantage an even bigger advantage and makes tank battles even MORE focused on air superiority. So now I'm completely convinced this idea is terrible. |
| |
|
| RavenLoud Canada. June 16 2012 05:51. Posts 1069 | Profile # |
On June 16 2012 05:48 SolidMoose wrote:
I read the response about the air superiority and this is meant to break siege lines. But that means only the person who has air superiority can utilize this ability. You're basically giving a player who already has an advantage an even bigger advantage and makes tank battles even MORE focused on air superiority. So now I'm completely convinced this idea is terrible.
All we need is a good, affordable, massable and long ranged GtA unit *stares at warhound*.Last edit: 2012-06-16 05:52:38 |
| |
|
| VforValdes Canada. June 16 2012 06:07. Posts 96 | Profile # |
I think this is a great idea. Limited use (1 per siege tank?), possible upgrade necessary, and most importantly:
Delayed smoke output.
Meaning... The smoke screen takes several seconds to deploy fully. Gives enough time for both players to assess the situation! |
| | And miles to go before I sleep. |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next All |
|
Store
