|
On May 25 2015 04:30 Riquiz wrote:
Buffing units(buildings) that don't cost supply seems like a bad idea.
We have had many o times, where people have complained about static d being stupid.
Few examples, infestor broodlord, passive swarmhosts, passive mech and sometimes even cannon/airtoss/storm.
Static defence is a way to increase your army strenght, without costing supply, but the drawback is that they are Static.
I think making them better, would encourage more turtle-like play, instead of having groups of units to defend.
Being static is a huge draw back, it does nothing to promote action/counteracts all it does is stifle it, especially if it is buffed, 2 spines and a spore should do nothing but slow a drop down sufficiently to get units into position.
Would way rather they buffed Nydus to make it a great defensive tool (wean Zerg off of Mutalisks to stop drop play if you can quickly shuttle units between bases) and perhaps add the shield battery so smaller groups of units can defend more spread out positions.
Bottom line, buffing static defense is a bad idea across the board, the only sensible thing along those lines is to buff cannons vs. Mutalisks but good Protoss players can anticipate the tech switch already, the Mutalisk death switch has been well figured out and they aren't nearly as good in ZvP as they used to be.
|
Bunker build time? 
|
On May 25 2015 07:10 GinDo wrote:Bunker build time?
Bunker salvage amount buffed to 76% from 75%.
|
On May 25 2015 07:53 Caihead wrote:Bunker salvage amount buffed to 76% from 75%.
Lets not get carried away here that would be op.
|
Make it so cannon, turrets and bunkers can move like spines and spores. Or make spines and spores Actually static and not dynamic. Spines and spores should count as units when they're unrooted And also bleed out when off creep too.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 25 2015 02:50 xyzz wrote:Absolutely no, of course. It'd be better if static D was removed altogether, than straight up buffing it. It serves a role though to defend certain early game cheeses, but that's where it should remain. Missile turrets and spores are already too strong as is, and shouldn't be that good if the game wants to promote micro vs. micro battles. Splitting armies to defend against a main push and a harassment attack is an interesting (and very difficult) part of the game, and I can't think of anyone except new players who would prefer to 'be completely safe from any harass' by just dropping static D all over their mineral lines and then focus on 1a moving the deathball consisting of every unit they have. No they don't. The purpose of the game isn't the last forever. The idea is that it shouldn't end too quick, but eventually it has to end. There's a sweet spot in between, and stalemates where static D can't be cleared with the units anymore would be disastrous. In the lategame it's good that armies can clean up buildings fast so that the game can actually progress towards the inevitable end.
In terms of game design, I think you're on the right track. One of the main issues with SC2 is that controlling space is difficult compared to BW where something like two lurkers on top of a ramp could hold off endless waves of marines. Tbh, I think this is largely a function of how armies interact in SC2 and the difficulties of splitting up armies.
First, armies in SC2 simply kill things way too quickly. A lot of the "Terrible Terrible Damage" factor is related to clumping and the smooth AI as well as unlimited unit selection. There's not really anything to do about it at this point, but as a result, it means that maxced armies can wipe out small numbers of units and/or static defense in moments, effectively forcing players to defend big armies with big armies. To compensate for this, space control units really need to be introduced into the game that can effectively zone out armies but not stack very well (consider the overkill factor of tanks in BW) or at least some kind of terrain advantage, particularly a good high ground advantage.
Buffing static defense is a bandaid fix which does not actually promote more unit movement. In theory, you could expand and believe in your expansions better, but in reality, I think buffed static defense only promotes turtling. Good game design dictates that you should be using units to defend threats; this takes more skill and promotes more action around the map. That said, I think a lot of hyper mobility factors in the game need to be removed (or rehauled) in order to really start achieving that kind of design, namely warpgate and nydus networks. I think if we even want to approach the idea of more active gameplay that relies on multiple small skirmishes, we need to address 1) how the economy works, 2) hypermobility of entire armies, and 3) better space control via units and/or terrain changes.
Blizzard's attempt to "create more action around the map" was to starve people out in LotV. However, I personally believe this errs from the spirit of Starcraft and fails to actually recreate the magic of positional play desperately needed in the game.
|
SC2 has less harass and aggression than BW, that's a fact that we're reminded at every f* path by Blizzard itself.
SC2 statics are better than BW statics, be it in stats, use or AI. More turret DPS andbetter upgrades with easier SCV repair pulls for it and bunkers (intelligent use of surface area), 50% more HP/Shield canon and decent AI), zerg static that are 1 step build AND aren't static anymore....
Shield battery does not exist anymore, but it was only rarelly used with PvZ and that's because archon were good. Maybe it could be a Nexus ability to avoid relying on mamacore, but I'm not develloping SC2 so you probably will never see it unless you play SB. 
Also buffing static will also buff early game cheese like canon rush, spine rush and 11/11 rax.
Cheesy / Gimmicky play is not an auto-win when the enemy is out of position
lol
I don't think you understands well, all your points are valid, but speak of defender ADVANTAGE. The reliance of static on defense being one of those advantages. Problem with SC2 is the speed at which aggression comes and the lack of defender advantage makes being passive really hard and unadvantageous. Mechanics like warp-in denies the only for of defender advantage that exist in SC (aka distance/time).
I think you're on the good way by identifying the problem, just the solution you propose is utter no-sense.
|
On May 25 2015 14:14 varsovie wrote:SC2 has less harass and aggression than BW, that's a fact that we're reminded at every f* path by Blizzard itself. SC2 statics are better than BW statics, be it in stats, use or AI. More turret DPS andbetter upgrades with easier SCV repair pulls for it and bunkers (intelligent use of surface area), 50% more HP/Shield canon and decent AI), zerg static that are 1 step build AND aren't static anymore.... Shield battery does not exist anymore, but it was only rarelly used with PvZ and that's because archon were good. Maybe it could be a Nexus ability to avoid relying on mamacore, but I'm not develloping SC2 so you probably will never see it unless you play SB. Also buffing static will also buff early game cheese like canon rush, spine rush and 11/11 rax. lol I don't think you understands well, all your points are valid, but speak of defender ADVANTAGE. The reliance of static on defense being one of those advantages. Problem with SC2 is the speed at which aggression comes and the lack of defender advantage makes being passive really hard and unadvantageous. Mechanics like warp-in denies the only for of defender advantage that exist in SC (aka distance/time). I think you're on the good way by identifying the problem, just the solution you propose is utter no-sense.
I wouldn't say its utter non-sense. I don't grok it as well as I'd like--but the truth is, in the end this is a game and not life and death. As such, a fix that enables a more preferred play style should be given credence even if it means the game will shift further away from its initial concept.
For example--late game buffs to bunkers, shield batteries, and nydus to give better late game position based play that doesn't buff canon/bunker rushes while giving small numbers of units a chance at stalling larger armies should be tested.
|
What if spores and spines would cost 1 supply? Since you sacrifice a drone and can move them it wouldn't be as annoying as if you made cannons or turrets cost supply. Then you could also give them a late-game upgrade without breaking the game.
|
I think ground static D is fine, there is no need to buff that. I feel that air static D should have an upgrade to allow them to do AOE to deter opponent from massing air units, some maps just allow air units to fly directly into the back of mineral lines with no risk.
|
[QUOTE]On May 25 2015 01:52 RoomOfMush wrote:
Pro:- More supply can be used to be aggressive when you dont have to leave units behind for defense
- Players can expand more care-free because static D is there to save the day
- Cheesy / Gimmicky play is not an auto-win when the enemy is out of position
- Game becomes more friendly for casuals and new players
I don't see how that is a good thing, it just makes the game easier for people who want to box their whole army and A-Move across the map while punishing the higher APM player who would like to use runbys to defend against higher army value at the time. Terrans using drop play to outmaneuver their opponents.
Don't understand what benefits there are for this, the "pros" are almost all negative from my perspective.
|
I believe that static D is an important part of RTS games. Static D plays a huge role in real-life military, so why should it not play a role in video game military as well?
If you compare SC2 with SC:BW you will see that BW static D was much more scary and potent. Thats not directly because of the stats (raw damage, hp, etc) but the map design, pathing, unit collisions, etc. If you, as a zerg, put sunkens, spores and lurkers on top of a narrow ramp (of which there were plenty in BW maps) you had a ridiculously tight defense, your enemy actually had to invest into breaking that instead of face rolling over it.
In SC2 battles always seem to resolve around deathballs running around. You dont want to put units into defensive positions because then your deathball is smaller then your opponents deathball. And the bigger deathball almost always wins (if we assume equally skilled players and balanced races). So putting units aside for defense means you can not fight with your army because your army is weaker. That wasnt such a big problem in BW, at least it doesnt seem that way to me.
When I watch the SSL11 that is going on right now I see those BW pros put up lots and lots of static D and the games do not degenerate into turtle fests at all. The static D gives them an opportunity to be more aggressive and to be more out on the map because they dont have to live in fear and they know that they have a steady income that is not suddenly going to take a big hit because of 8 zealots or 6 dark templars or a crackling run by or something.
|
On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas
No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons.
|
On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons.
But when a group of Stalkers + Cannons only kill 6 out of 30 Mutas in a flock, is it really that entertaining? For me, it isn't, from either a player or a spectator perspective. A light buff in the form of a late-game upgrade doesn't seem that unreasonable, to me.
|
On May 25 2015 23:25 wongfeihung wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons. But when a group of Stalkers + Cannons only kill 6 out of 30 Mutas in a flock, is it really that entertaining? For me, it isn't, from either a player or a spectator perspective. A light buff in the form of a late-game upgrade doesn't seem that unreasonable, to me.
if there's 30 mutas out and you have a group of stalkers and a bunch of cannons to defend them, you are doing something wrong
|
On May 25 2015 23:26 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2015 23:25 wongfeihung wrote:On May 25 2015 22:55 ilovegroov wrote:On May 25 2015 04:41 TT1 wrote:
cannons definitely need to be stronger vs mutas No, especially coming from a pro. Its more entertaining if you have to defend with blink stalkers instead of not doing shit and sitting behind cannons. But when a group of Stalkers + Cannons only kill 6 out of 30 Mutas in a flock, is it really that entertaining? For me, it isn't, from either a player or a spectator perspective. A light buff in the form of a late-game upgrade doesn't seem that unreasonable, to me. if there's 30 mutas out and you have a group of stalkers and a bunch of cannons to defend them, you are doing something wrong
How is he doing something wrong?
Zerg has an easy time building 30 mutalisks all at once in the very late game. Its not even that uncommon, I have seen it happen in plenty of pro matches.
|
I'm with the opinon that static D should be a little stronger or have complements to them. If we compare races to BW, their static D is probably weaker than in SC2. Static defense was buffed when being ported to SC2, but so were the potential aggressions that you could face.
Terrans have a very good kit regarding static D, if we think of Building Armor and Repair. Turrets are also very strong and deal a ton of damage to all types of units, unlike BW, and have a bit more health. Fortresses are also strong, but very late-game oriented.
However, Terran has sometimes some problems defending ground as Siege Tanks are way less common than they were on BW and the units it counters are more mobile than their BW counterparts (Roaches burrow move+regen, Stalker blink) and widow mines cannot cover completely the defensive uses that spider mines had at holding occasional runbies. However, I think that Terrans do quite well regarding static D from what we see in SC2.
Zergs can also transfuse with queens and static D is quite more comfortable to build, and can be repositioned. Back in BW the stats of them were very similar and you could not reposition or transfuse them. But Spine crawler is a bit weaker.
Protoss cannons have also more HP than their BW counterparts and similar stats regarding damage and attack speed.
I think that the problems with static D feeling "weak" is a combinaison of factors from SC2:
1- The loss of high ground advantage.
2- Silk Smooth pathing, making static defense quite useless to set "barricade points" to block runbies. Back in BW few cannons with few units caused much more "block" effect since units were dumber. In SC2 units just move perfectly, so a runby will just ignore you and rush the minreal line without any kind of "block" delays, thus minimizing the exposition to the static defense.
3- Terran Drop play being x2/x3 times stronger, since Terran Marines have 40% more HP, Medivacs combine the function of Medics and Dropships in 1 unit, and Terran has Marauders, that have more HP and way more damage vs armored (structures) than Firebats. Also, Medivacs have the "speed" button to get drops in with minimized exposure.
4- Protoss Drop/Warp play being fairly stronger than on BW, since Warp Prisms have more HP, and can warp units into the battlefield. Sentry cheese also exists.
5- Stronger units early game for Zerg and Terran. Roaches have almost x2 the health of BW Hydralisks (despite having less damage), Banelings do a ton of damage to buildings, and Marauders have inmense firepower vs armored (buildings) with good HP, compared to the BW Firebat.
6 - Air to ground units having good firepower. Banshees and VoidRays have a very noticeable DPS vs ground, specially VoidRays vs armored, that make static D look less intimidating, specially early game.
7- The effect of economy when expanded. With a BW-type of econ, there is a point where mineral just floats if you have expanded enough.
Maybe when thinking about this topic, we could apply adjustements over this questions too. Having some high ground advantage, additional mechanics for Terran Bunkers, Autoturrets being some thing that is not dropped from Ravens, some more damage on SpineCrawlers, delaying "SpeedyVacs" with an upgrade, some mechanics for the Queen, Baneling nerf, some Protective mechanic from Nexus for the Photon Cannon, extra damage vs armored on Photon cannons, nerfing the Warp potential on WarpPrisms.. etc.
IMAO, passive strength brought by static D is quite okay in the game. Zerg is in a good spot, but Terrans has some sometimes problems regarding ground control that are probably solved by the SiegeTank - Medivac combo on LotV, and could have another option for bunkers or something different early game. Protoss cannons feel also relatively weak when not being cheesed, since it's impossible to repair or heal them annd are relatively fragile at defending. If there was some mechanic that prevented cannon sniping, we could just remove Photon Overcharge.
|
static defense should be viewed as a scrappy, sub-par time-buying solution to defending vs drops, warp prism warpins, ling run-bys and an occasional air harass. Vs any sustained harass the static defense should always fall short of cost-effectiveness. The benefit is you have time to get some units back to deal with the threat at hand.
If it becomes possible for any race to build a bunch of static d what happens?
-Deathball encouraged since why split off anything?
-Split maps -- zerg gets creep to the middle and everyone suffers. toss throws down a line of cannons and everyone suffers, terran-- sorry your rockets only shoot up but changing this might throw off the state of PvP so let's keep them as they are :D
-Stupidly drawn out games where bases 5-8 are not touchable (static d costs only minerals and usually players have a decent bank by the time their 3rd is running smoothly)
So since we have lots of protoss friends who want to buff their cannons for the above reasons, let's entertain the idea in exchange for: gas 50 gas added cost (one stalker worth) per cannon. Maybe this will kill the cannon rush, arguably the lamest thing in all of starcraft anyway.
|
agreed static d leads to more deathballs and players with less skill getting buffed. Very similar to the warp mechanic.
|
On May 25 2015 03:51 FeyFey wrote:
Issue with this is static defense of the Terran costs supply or is to expensive for what it does (PF). Static defense of the Zerg can move and doesn't cost supply.
So Zerg would benefit massively and Terran would have nothing from it.
Zerg defense should cost 1 supply until they decide to permanently root it T.T . Or they should allow Terran to do the 100% scraps on their static again not only Bunkers. And Protoss gets badass damage Photons.
As if refund 75% of money for 'oops i invested too much in D' wasn't bad enough....
Besides, PFs and bunkers are very good defense in mid game too. Spines/Cannons don't even compare. Terran has it the best and ur still complaining
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
