poll: Paper Units

still trolling since you lost an argument?

Tatsu I know you mean well but I think you're doing more harm than good here.

no. isn't it obvious? people from the starcraft playerbase could feel homesick about the HP-dps ratio, same as FA players.
considering @lauri0 has a protoss drone as an icon and he started this whole skiddadle , I think it's fair to say it's already the case.

I noticed a fair number of FA goers in this thread arguing for HPbuff/engagement duration buff across this tread as well.

Engagements in SC2 are over in an instant because they cranked up the game speed by 40% from Brood War. And they also cut down the number of units drastically- in some cases by half.

For example, roaches and hydralisks are 2 supply instead of 1. Siege Tanks are 3 supply. Widow mines cost 2 supply instead of zero for spider mines. Thors, colossi, and ultralisks are 6 supply, whereas the only 6 supply units in BW are battlecruisers and carriers. Even ultralisks are only 4 supply. Case in point that increasing HP is bad- fewer ultralisks with more HP means engagements are more deterministic, and end sooner.

Because there are many fewer units on the board, and the game speed is much faster, SC2 engagements are over in three seconds. Every single unit on the board is engaging simultaneously, and there really are not that many of them.

Compare to Brood War, where there are many more units possible in a maxed army. Engagements can take a very long time, even though a single unit often dies pretty much instantly.

Still, Starcraft units, and especially Starcraft 2 units, actually take quite a lot of hits, but are few in number. This leads to a very micromanagement-intensive game where losing a single colossus can literally decide the entire game. Compare with a game like NOTA, where ground units are extremely squishy (much more so than PA) but a ground army is very durable due to quantity.

ok the rest of the argument is correct but this part is false.
both SC BW and SC2 are limited to a 200 cap which both players would play at constantly. the engagements only ever took place, both in SC and SC2 when both players had reached cap and where lurking around with their "perfected deck" of unit (i see the comparison to card games here, as very handy, since it's essentially the same thing) and wait for the perfect moment to strike.

There are less units on the field in SC2 because unit supply costs were almost doubled.

So yes, Broodwar had more possible units.

no there arn't, listen : the engagements still happen in SCII at unit cap. go watch some pro casts http://wcs.battle.net/sc2/en

tatsujb, you are the one who needs to watch pro Brood War. The supply cap is rarely hit in BW.

Secondly, units in BW cost less supply almost across the board. This means you can fit many more units within 200 supply.

The maxed armies "lurking around" is a blight on SC2, to say nothing of deathballs and how deterministic battles are. SC2 is a extremely casual compared to Brood War, and the pro scene is really suffering from lack of skill ceiling. The features you describe are the worst parts of SC2 gameplay that everyone wishes SC2 did more like Brood War instead. Passive gameplay, always hitting the supply cap, unit composition based gameplay, all of this is the worst parts of SC2. Only the weakest players actually LIKE the deathballs that micro themselves, and how the entire game is decided in one big battle instead of one tiny move, worker kill, extra unit killed, a micron at a time constantly over the entire game.

Still, PA is completely different from Starcraft philosophically. Instead of glorifying micromanagement and player APM, PA is intended to minimize micromanagement and focus on strategic decision-making. Where SC2 is made weaker by the fact that a pro can't take a lesser player apart with one shuttle+reaver, PA will focus on large groups of units and larger-scale decisions.

Most of BW's gameplay came from its horrendous path-finding.

??? that's not how supply works.. the supply cost of units is the same from SC BW to SC II

basicaly engagements happen at ~200 units for both players in both games.

SC2 doesn't have unit cap. SC2 have Supply cap. Many units in SC2 takes more supply than in SC1.
Counterargument:Mules, Infested Terran, ... what? Protoss doesn't get anything except Hallucinations?

Again. Why does this game have to be exactly like other games?

And how are we "alienating" other players by making the game different?

Do you seriously not understand how supply works?

A Marine costs 1 supply. A Hellion costs 2 supply. A Siege Tank costs 3 supply. A Thor costs 6 supply. If you have 60 supply, you can have 60 marines or 30 Hellions or 20 Siege Tanks or 10 Thors. If you increase how much supply units cost, you get fewer units within the supply max of 200.

You will basically NEVER see 200 units in SC2. Ever. It is possible using zerglings, but extremely rare. In order to have a healthy economy you need about 80 workers. That leaves you 120 supply for actual military units. And mid/late game units tend to be on the more expensive and higher-supply-cost side. Maxed-out armies in SC2 are generally no more than 80 actual units. Late game Protoss armies much less- more like 40-50 units due to the use of Colossi and 2 supply Stalkers.

If you really did not even understand how supply works, you really should not be talking about Starcraft.

I agree with brianpurkiss that PA is its own game. However it makes sense to look at other RTS games to figure out how RTS games work, what has been successful and what hasn't, the effect that certain mechanics have, what is strategically interesting, and what people find fun.

This is one of the main reasons I don't like Starcraft.

The games are hilariously small.

I don't understand how the concept of "The units cost more supply to make" isn't understood. Like.

What.

Personally, I like the game how it is. At first I thought it was a little too easy to kill, but when you've got hundreds/thousands, its all good, and how it should be. Cannon Fodder!

I compleatly understand the points your making, but I am going to be a broken record and say we can afford to experiment atm, even to the point where it might break the game balance or performance wise.

I dont go round looking to throw my army away my army that I typicaly have left after knocking out another player to find that some one has turtled hard with anti nukes ect ect. Dont take me wrong not saying the death ball should win out but it should be able to make more of a dent in a defense line.

It will be nice ounce the game becomes more macro focused over micro, but I increasing unit health will not have that large of an impact on it. What will have a much larger impact on this will be some think like unit targeting that will mean small groups of microed units will lose a lot of there power and will help to negate the unit vs unit impact of increasing unit health.

For things like this, like I have mentioned, I'm sure Uber has already experimented with. For them, it's just a variable. If they change it and push it live in any way, there will be a PR shitstorm. This is their game, not ours. It's better for them to experiment with at this stage due to the repercussions.

And again, I am all for experimenting. However, it's a bit premature for big things like this. We need a (at least mostly) full unit roster first.

I agree that people who are complaining about all the units dying too quickly really should be waiting for more unit types. Obviously there will be large variation in unit durability as well as weapons, movement, and so on.

If you choose to use more durable units as your mass-produced regular units, that is totally up to you. Part of what PA is going for is to have a sufficiently diverse roster of units that different players will choose to use different units in different ways.

But you will be paying for that extra HP in a substantially increased unit cost. And consequently, the most efficient units to use in huge numbers will be among the squishiest, because they will be among the cheapest. In order to mass produce bigger, more individually durable units, you are going to need a lot of economy.

Expect people to make a HUGE number of cheap units of whichever types they prefer, and mix in other, more expensive units to suit their preference.

Yeah, as it stands a group of 50 ants isn't what players should be wining with.

500 comes somewhat close.