Coop Commander idea: Split Ending to Split Options

[Oxstar-2165]

@SilvrPaladin-1646

Zeratul does have 2 “fundamentally different” playstyles - army focused or cannon focused

But they are not exclusive to one another and can overlap in any number of ways. Not anything like what the OP suggests.

[SilvrPaladin-1646]

@Oxstar-2165

@SilvrPaladin-1646

Zeratul does have 2 “fundamentally different” playstyles - army focused or cannon focused

But they are not exclusive to one another and can overlap in any number of ways. Not anything like what the OP suggests.

As my posting last night indicates, I’ve come to the conclusion that “my” definition of “radically different playstyle” - read as “same units but being used in different roles / for different purposes because the selected bonus (mastery) collection emphasizes the use of the unit selection in primarily X manner, to best illustrate a “cannon” Zeratul only produces enough “field army” to gain vision (or just leeches off the partner), shieldguards to strengthen the cannons, and the bulk of Zera’s effects on the battlefield come from multiple projected cannons, while an “army” Zeratul may project a couple of cannons here and there to “supplement / distract for” the army, where numerous DTs are blinking around willy-nilly with their “blink rays” and the support units are in the field keeping the gang around a lot longer.” is not the same as what the post is really looking for.

Which led to my above series of questions. To reiterate:

If the “swappable” Commander is only using half of their "Stetmann/Dehaka sized unit type allotment in a mission, then the Commander is going to either have 2 masses of “generalist” units or face the potential to “lock out” a hard counter to what the enemy comp is throwing at them.

If the Swappable Commander has “generalist” topbar, mastery, and commander bonuses to go with the above “generalist” army, how “radically different” are they? Most of your “generalist” damage coming from Air or Ground sources? Ranged vs Melee? Gonna run into situations like Swann who has Ground to Air Goliaths, Cyclones and Thors (and we all know which one of the three tend to be picked for any given task…)?

And if a “lockout” situation exists, what exactly are the plans to “counteract” said lockout and keep the commander viable in what many may start to view as a “no win” scenario?

And if the “swappable” commander is given a full set of units, 2 topbars which activate based on the selected “tech tree”, and masteries that affect the different trees in different ways, at what point would Blizzard (or anyone else for that matter) say that this “2 full commander fusion” should be released as two separate commanders (or start demanding fusions of existing commanders so that they too can enjoy picking exactly which unit set they want once the mission has commenced instead of having to do so prior to picking their random mission)?

Admittedly, the Tosh example above - the one where he can go “tech” to have his spectre/grunt/vehicle army be high damage to single (armored) targers or go “psi” to have the same 3-5 units be much better at zapping swarmy (bio) with AoE spells is arguably the “closest” I’m seeing of something that’s both “viable” and “not a ton of work to do”, but at thatpoint, wouldn’t it be “equally effective” if instead of having the “forced split”/lockout of critical powers like Hybrid Killers on the swarmy side, take the 6-10 “permutations” of units and make them 100% constructable 100% of the time and count on the player to emphasize (self-limit if desired) which side/style of units he wants on the table (so you’re able to build a couple of anti-hybrid heavies to cover for your swarm killing casters and vice-versa, or the player can “choose” to ignore all the casters while building the “heavy” units exclusively…

[Oxstar-2165]

Dude. It doesn’t matter what your “definition” is, nor was it necessary to write an essay about it. The OP suggets a commander that can pick between two choices that leads down completely diffrent gameplay. Units, tech trees, upgrades, playstyle, two different side, both being exclusive to the other and being thematic of the two ending scenarios in the campaigns. Obviously colonists aren’t going to fight alongside infested, and infested are not going to be using scientific weapons.

Zeratul is none of this. No commander is. That’s why it’s a novel idea and something that seems to fascinate people, me included.

[SilvrPaladin-1646]

Sometimes knowing where the poster/debater is coming from is useful in understanding what/why (s)he is saying/asking what is being asked.

Such as the pile of questions following the essay. I’m having a hard time over here attempting to grasp “radically different enough” playstyles based on in-game choices that doesn’t lead down a rabbit hole of (choose) “2 commanders fused together” / “2 generalist armies that deal masses of damage from different angles” / “an army that is capable of being screwed by a wrong choice to the point that the mission is a failure” / “The commander is incapable of handling mutations that throw light/swarmy and heavy/armored at the player at the same time”.

So at this point I’m trying to both post where I’m coming from and seek the answers to educate me on what’s being looked for here…

[heroikc-1623]

@SilvrPaladin-1646

Taking an army that has a large number of unit types, like say Stetmann / Dehaka, then “cutting it in half” results in an army unit selection screen that resembles Swann or Alarak - and both their armies are comprised primarily of “generalists” with different support options.

Even when the basis is a bunch of generic units with access to one of two different tech options? Also, remind me of how large the Terran and Zerg armies were before they were broken down into 1-3 different commander options? You know, the generalist armies in campaign with many support options? Protoss campaign units splits up just as much with them composing four coop commanders.

@SilvrPaladin-1646

However, a “traditional” commander would be forced to share the masteries, topbar power selection, and innate commander bonuses with both tech trees. At this point, what is really going to drive the “radical differences in playstyle” between the tech choices?

And if the “Different extremes” is such an issue, please look up Varian Wrynn of Blizzard’s Heroes of the Storm, a hero who can permanently pick one of three different roles; disruptive tank, high speed duelist, or bursty armor busting assassin. I’m pretty sure if Blizz could design someone like this, making a commander with two different trees should not be hard. Masteries aren’t that hard given they are generic bonuses, and topbar could be determined/changed by what tree is picked (somewhat like a pick one for all version of Zeratul).

@SilvrPaladin-1646

At which point, wouldn’t it be more effective (and money making) to release the “fusion” as two separate commanders?

Wouldn’t it be more interesting if the commander was two for one? I mean, who could resist such a deal?

@SilvrPaladin-1646

Otherwise, especially if you start to tweak topbars to be “appropriate” to the tech tree chosen and have a massive unit list that ultimately results in two “fleshed out armies post-choice” - you’re basically taking and fusing two commanders into one and “slipping” the choice of commander from pre-game to in-game.

And besides, it’s a generic tech tree base, relatively underpowered on its own, with access to one of two radical variants and associated topbar and super units. And be honest; the concept has room to stick to the “9-11 units” rule that Coop runs by. Just list the base unit/defenses and what they can “evolve” too, plus the super/exclusive units.

@SilvrPaladin-1646

And if you’re going to be “risky” with the choice - where it’s possible to “inadvertently” lock the player out of the tech tree that was designed to defeat certain comps - how would you “recover” from making the wrong choice when facing the comp that kills your chosen comp?

Well, it wouldn’t be much of a game if there was no risk. Seriously, Tychus has to make that choice throughout the game. “Do I go with Rattlesnake for healing or Sirius for turrets? Should I go with Cannonball for tanking or Sam for killing? Vega or Blaze? Nux or Nikara?” Zeratul has LESS ability to recover if he picked the wrong topbar power. And then there’s the high cost/investment commanders, like Nova, Abathur and Karax; what happens when you lost your army? Hope you can make a new one before the next attack? What if your Fenix “Carrier Me” tactic flopped hard? Your Raynor infantry blob was wiped out? You lost your upgraded Assault Galleons (and all Hans on deck)? Should you fire your ultimate ability now or save it for later?

Point is: “risk and reward” is a variable dependent on player skill and preference. The only time a developer should balance that is when they are far from equal (too much reward for no risk, too risky for little gain, etc).

[heroikc-1623]

@SilvrPaladin-1646

If the “swappable” Commander is only using half of their "Stetmann/Dehaka sized unit type allotment in a mission, then the Commander is going to either have 2 masses of “generalist” units or face the potential to “lock out” a hard counter to what the enemy comp is throwing at them.

Again, VARIANTS; like colonial trooper could have a grenade launcher whereas zombie trooper would have parasite/Corpser bullets? And do you mind defining “generalist” because you seem to have a unique definition of “radically different”? I mean, are Cyclones “generalists”? Or marines, hyrdas and stalkers? They all can fight any target effectively, and are effected by more or less the same counters (i.e. banelings, siege tanks, etc). Are Goliaths and Vikings “general support?” Are Zerglings and Zealots the “general frontliners?”

Or are your “generalists” basically the most common type of unit used by a given commander? In which case, there are commanders who use anywhere from 2 to four different unit types in any strategy.

It’s also more “affect playstyle” than “affect your available counters”.

@SilvrPaladin-1646

If the Swappable Commander has “generalist” topbar, mastery, and commander bonuses to go with the above “generalist” army, how “radically different” are they? Most of your “generalist” damage coming from Air or Ground sources? Ranged vs Melee? Gonna run into situations like Swann who has Ground to Air Goliaths, Cyclones and Thors (and we all know which one of the three tend to be picked for any given task…)?

Here’s an idea I doubt you considered: the topbar is locked UNTIL you picked one or the other tech tree. As for Swann, remember that each unit can counter different targets well; Goliaths rock against hard air targets like battlecruisers and carriers, but Thors can tank well, restore themselves, and beat out Mutas and Phoenixes while having those back cannons. As for Cyclones? Use them for objectives and if you like kiting.

@SilvrPaladin-1646

And if a “lockout” situation exists, what exactly are the plans to “counteract” said lockout and keep the commander viable in what many may start to view as a “no win” scenario?

You keep using “lockout” to describe a situation that, at most, removes access to a handful of upgrades, some random topbar abilities, one super unit, and maybe a random support/auxiliary unit or two. It’s as though you’re under the delusion that you know what someone else is talking about better than everyone else, including the guy talking.

@SilvrPaladin-1646

And if the “swappable” commander is given a full set of units, 2 topbars which activate based on the selected “tech tree”, and masteries that affect the different trees in different ways, at what point would Blizzard (or anyone else for that matter) say that this “2 full commander fusion” should be released as two separate commanders (or start demanding fusions of existing commanders so that they too can enjoy picking exactly which unit set they want once the mission has commenced instead of having to do so prior to picking their random mission)?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Zeratul have, essentially, 54 potential topbar combinations that he can complete in under 12 minutes? And Tychus can have potentially 1680 comp combos, not factoring gear upgrades? Also, “2 full commander fusion?” Think Han and Horner.

[SilvrPaladin-1646]

Quick stabs:

No, I don’t know more about what your thinking than you know what I’m thinking…

Though while Swann’s AA is “goliath great vs armored, thor great vs. light”, many people notice that the Goliath AA, especially en-masse as is typical of a Swann build, is “more than capable” of deleting Muta/Scourge/Phoenix wings as well as a Thor (and faster too…). This is a fair example of “too generalized”…

Han & Horner, if you separate them out, aren’t 2 full commanders. Han is the "disposable mineral dump/ground units while Horner’s the “big buff Air support”.

Finally, all that I can think of is a debate that was had back on the old forums. Thrust of the debate was “I play random map for the bonus XP, and I want to be able to adjust my masteries after knowing what map I’m getting because, say, a hero Nova sucks on defensive missions while Unit Nova is “suboptimal” on many offensive ones. Or Defensive Karax for DoN / TotP / ME and Army Karax for Void Thrashing, L&L, Rifts… and “generalizing” the masteries makes for a meh commander”…

Response was “you’re being given extra XP for facing off against the RNG. If you want to avoid the RNG, pre-select both your masteries and map. Yeah, it’s a slower slog through the levels but you’ll still get there.”

And now we have even more RNG goodness heaped upon us via Brutal+…