Wondering what you guys think about this.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2140187641?page=1#0

Making units that can only exist/be built on water is dumb.

Now, a ground unit having the capabilities of traveling underwater is doable but it would need to have a special advantage or something. Like units are cloaked, more armor, travels faster. Or it can serve as transportation (but the unit itself would then be revealed and vulnerable to "sinking").

It would be interesting but if such an ability/unit were implemented, all three races would need to have it. Depending on the layout of certain maps, it would be extremely unbalanced if only one race had the ability to travel on/under water.

lol. It's pretty stupid I'll give it that much.

Starcraft II is set in the future, and there won't be boats in the future.

Each race has a flying transport unit and flying fighting units. Adding boats into this mix is just creating more areas of a map which will be completely ignored. Take this for example, imagine an island expansion, surrounded by water. Do you a) go build a shipyard and make some boats to harass his mineral lines? Or do you rather just build some air units?

I think Starcraft 2 has more than enough pathing available for a strategy game - Ground, Air and Cliff <-- all you need.

Name me one amazing custom map which used Boats, apart from Battleships. And we already have Battletanks or whatever the SC2 version was named (i'm tired)

Plus you can make units float on water with the SC2 editor, so unless you specifically need boats for melee (which seems absolutely useless), this seems like a pointless request.

Traditionally (C&C, Supreme Commander, etc.) sea units serve as long range siege units. Or submarines for getting into range undetected.
And I think this concept works in RTS in general when the maps are designed to support it. Just adding sea units won't do any good for SC. You'd also need to provide suitable maps.
That includes custom maps. I think if you have a nice custom map concept in mind sea units will fit in just nicely.

Useless for sc2 lol... there's just so many parameters you have to tweek to make it work... but i'd guess you can make it so a unit can only travel on water...

I'm really questioning whether or not you actually read threads before posting in them on your posting sprees.

inb4 DevliN lays the smack down

Well, just after...

Yeah it's a pointless request. You'de need to develop an entire new brand of melee maps to accommodate sea-passages, lanes, lakes etc. And, even once you've done this, everyone would just use air anyway.

It's difficult to do this. Water in SCII is purely a graphical thing, where in WCIII it was a variation on terrain. I don't see built-in support happening, though I suppose someone may engineer a brand new way to present water or work within the constraints of the current system to create a limited but workable solution.

Someone did it in beta, so it is certainly possible.

I was working on a limited system to allow it (and, with additional limits, it works) but in order to allow fluid movement over over while the terrain under it is changing some datawork with it is needed; I'm not sure if it's part of the AI that changes the height of air units units as they approach a cliff or something else, but for fluid naval emulation, that aspect of movement needs to be removed. And things like pathing need to be changed around, too.

Where did you see it, Devlin? Making fully fluid, WCIII-like naval movement using my method would be incredibly difficult, so it sounds like they found another method.

It was some project in SC2Mapster. It probably still exists in their map database. Essentially they set it up so that you could move specific units on water as if they were floating, and it even went so far as to make buildings "float" as well.

What about things like pathing, only allowing the units to move through water and having them find the shortest path from one point to another?

@Devlin I did read the thread 0_o what did i do wrong this time .

You were repeating things others said in the thread, almost as if you didn't read any prior posts. I was also referring to how you tend to go on posting sprees, responding to a bunch of topics in a short time period (similar to now, actually), with a lot of those posts mimicking other older posts in those threads. On the surface, it looks like you're just responding for the sake of responding, rather than actually taking part in the discussion. If that's not the case, then that's great. I just know I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

Why respond to my post after all this time? That was almost 2 months ago.