|
I haven't played this mod very much, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
I really like how hard it is to have offensive healing as zerg because of how slow queens are. This means that it can be even more powerful. If you were to give healing to another more prolific, or more offensive caster, you would have to nerf it. Zerg already have the passive healing, and Queen's transfuse has created some of the best defensive holds in normal SC2. This is an interesting, exciting, and versatile ability on a slow, mostly defensive unit.
I don't think designating the queen to be 100% at the base would be a good thing, I think it would make the unit less interesting.
|
In starbow you are limited on queen production, one per hatchery. In sc2 mass queens transfusing broodlords is viable and transfuse is still very viable on defense in both games. My issue is having our key unit of economy and production being our best caster . That's far too many roles on one unit. Idc if transfuse is moved to another unit or not, was just saying it would further the queens role at base defense and economy. Even in lore, a queen should remain at her keep not be out on the battlefield. Most alien themed queens just lay eggs to support army or remain in there alien aircraft. I don't know how much more you want me to say to show to you that the queen absolutely should not have dark swarm, it just doesn't fit her at all.
|
|
|
A few things concerning the maps:
In my opinion, the best map of the current map pool is Match Point. It was already a very good map on BW and the Starbow version is almost as good as the old one. I especially love how the high ground with the xel'naga tower (next to the 3rd base) work. My only concerns about this map is the lack of space between the natural mineral line and the high ground. In fact, you can't even bring an Archon in there... I also think that the ramp leading to the center high ground shall be a bit bigger (a bit like in the BW version) because currently, there is way too many small ramp on the map.
Breaking Point is also a very good map but there is a huge problem with it for PvZ: the backdoor in the natural. In SC2 this kind of backdoor aren't a problem (because buy the time the rock is down, a lot of FF shall be available) but in BW or Starbow, it make defending against an hydra bust as Protoss almost impossible. Against this kind of play, you need a lot of canon and here, canon can't cover both entrance to your natural. I also think that the third shall not be as close as the natural as it is currently since it's way too easy to turtle on 3 base. This isn't SC2, so we don't need 3rd that are easy to take.
Oakshire is kinda bad. There is not a single open area in the map... It make melee units almost useless and fighting against some composition (like mech or lurkers) can be very difficult because of how easy it is to defend almost all path between the 2 side of the map.
I haven't played enough game on Sacred Sand so I will not comment about it.
Imo, some new maps shall be added to the mappool. A good idea can be to search for good BW remake since the game work a bit like Starbow. I also think that some SC2 maps can be good for Starbow. I will take a look at the maps forum and try to give you an idea of what map can be used.
|
Breaking Point backdoor is fine. By the time bust comes you should have a reaver and you should scout that theres a 2 base bust coming from Zerg to go for fast reaver anyways. If they do get in its very tight so zealot/stalker will work well as will reavers or templar. Lots of ways to defend.
Oakshire is a small micro map. Xel Naga Caverns or Steppes of War. It doesn't have to be balanced for every type of playstyle possible, thats what gives certain maps flavour and when doing a bo3/bo5 gives players incentive to have choice in maps for the next game, to pick a map they are comfortable with.
|
Also, playing around with the max population will help get rid of late game death balls. Increasing the population cap is a real buff to splash damage units. More splash damage units = more death to clumped armies. Also, larger populations will make chokes more important and detrimental to A-moving armies. Consider playing around with a 250 max population cap (and adjust accordingly). Also, more units = looks cooler.
I think the max unit limit of 200 is fine. The game right now is built to stretch the time line between 0 supply and 200 supply. For example, in SC2 it would take only a few minutes to go from 100 supply to 200 supply. In Starbow, that distance in time is wider, which means that we get more diversity in the game. You will not always have time to wait for 200/200 and we see players attack with 60 supply, 80 supply, 120 supply and 170 supply armies. Attacks happens at different stages in the game. In SC2, often players max out before they attack since that is so easy to do.
Besides, I play and create this MOD on a 5 year old laptop. Even more units in the game would make my computer explode :p
As for Frenzy though Frenzy is like an AoE Stimpack for the zerg army at hive tech so in terms of excitement I don't see how it could be less entertaining or enjoyable than stim :-/
Stimpack increases movement and attack speed of a unit. That is fun since it enables Terran players more mobility and they can execute bold moves. Run in, focus fire the target and run out. It rewards timing and execution in combat and it allows them to even chase the enemy!
Frenzy only adds a 50% damage increase over 15 seconds. Imagine if Stim did the same thing. You stim, your marines deal more damage... Thats it. Earlier I expeimented with Frenzy adding more movement and attack speed for Zerg units. But it kinda screw up the game.. Zerglings on the creep already run fast as lightning.. Adding X% increase to move and attack made it look weird. They zipped through the screen.
Kabel has succesfully killed the deathball as it is. 
I hope so atleast. I will continue the fight until the deathball truly is dead. I still think there are small improvements in the game that can be made to further encouarge players to spread out their units more. AoE-spells is an important factor in this and thats why I want to succed with the Zerg spells. I recommend this well written article: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=371077
If we go with the assumption that we can throw skills on units and just revert every time it fails then 2 things happen:
1) We create way too much work for Kabel and anyone else who may work on the actual mod, having them test out silly theories and suggestion that have little to no benefit to the actual game
2) We irritate those who currently play and potentially drive them away because of all the changes all over the place.
1. I agree with this. I am doing all work with the MOD myself in the editor. I sometimes get much needed help to fix certain things by a couple of persons, but all new ideas people propose must be created from scratch often. My time is limited and I can´t create everything myself or ask people do it for me, just to try all ideas people have. Completely new ideas for spells/units/mechanics must be absolutely brilliant to make them worthwile to bring to life. Thats why I try to use as much stuff from SC2 and BW as possible. People are familiar with the spells, they have been created by professional designers, I can copy them via the editor.
2. Unfortunatly I have scared away some players from this during the past months because I have changed things they did not like or agree with or just though it was too many changes. But again, this is in development stage and it is created by an amateur with no budget and no experience from similar projects. Attempts to make the game better will obviously happen and it will include changes and some of them will maybe later prove to be bad. I will try to not be too drastic anymore, but at the same time, I can´t prevent people from getting tired of this either. If I would be scared when people threatend me to never play this again if I make a certain change, I would not be able to do anything, since there will always be someone who dislikes what I do. I will try to be careful with the changes I make. Thats why I keep such open dicussion here as possible about my though process and concerns, to prepare people for what might happen and give them ways to prove me wrong or bring better ideas.
|
I have two replays to show. Both replays consists of high early and midgame aggression. I sometimes hear that the "action" in Starbow starts much later in the game, compared to SC2.
PvT: Here we see the importance of good positioning, decision making in combat and the wide possible uses units provide for the players. We see Wraiths and Stalkers dance to snipe/protect a crucial Warp Prism, SCVs protecting an important lonely tank, Protoss doing some nice spider mine sniping and mine dragging.. We see some warp in and drops and some well timed Calldown SCVs .. And a clever spider mine trap ^^ This is an intense micro game with some unorthodox strategies from Protoss. http://drop.sc/261434
ZvP: Low economy high aggression Zerg. This shows that Zerg must not be played as a macro race. JulyZerg anyone? http://drop.sc/261435
|
On October 05 2012 08:17 ArkussSC2 wrote:
Breaking Point backdoor is fine. By the time bust comes you should have a reaver and you should scout that theres a 2 base bust coming from Zerg to go for fast reaver anyways. If they do get in its very tight so zealot/stalker will work well as will reavers or templar. Lots of ways to defend.
After FFE or Nexus, Reaver (or templars) don't come out in time to defend against a 2/3 base hydra bust.
By the way, going straight to Reaver against Zerg is a bit risky since you can't confirm that he is going for a hydra bust before putting down your first tech structure. The only thing you can usually see with your probe scout is the pool timing and the number of hatch (and sometime the gaz timing). If the Zerg is on 2 base, it can be an hydra bust but it can also be 2 base muta or even 2 base lurker drop, and if you go for fast reaver against muta opening, you will die...
|
Don't think we're playing the same mod hip because fast reavers on 2 base are very common vs 3 base Zerg and you can get reaver just after 7 minute mark, hydra bust off 3 base hits at 9 minutes. Once you see that destructible wall going down you drop a cannon or two and you'll be fine with your army there. In terms of scouting, I would recommand protoss getting a reaver if theres a fast third and scout with an early pressure zealot to see whats going on in the main to try and find if hes going lair or not. if theres no fast third then I wouldn't expect a bust play coming out after opponent see's your walled in unless you're maybe terran or something.
Theres a lot of scenario's that can happen but I know Protoss can hold because I do a lot of 3 base aggression and the lesser toss plays die to it while the good ones hold and are way ahead after it.
|
How can flanking become more important in Starbow?
In BW, players often tried to flank the opponent in combats. They attacked from multiple angles at the same time in an engagement. That gave an advantage compared to if players just attacked from one front.
In SC2 we rarely see players flank each others armies. It feels like there is no reward in it, when you might as well attack with everything from one front and get a good concave.
|
On October 05 2012 19:56 ArkussSC2 wrote:
Don't think we're playing the same mod hip because fast reavers on 2 base are very common vs 3 base Zerg and you can get reaver just after 7 minute mark, hydra bust off 3 base hits at 9 minutes. Once you see that destructible wall going down you drop a cannon or two and you'll be fine with your army there. In terms of scouting, I would recommand protoss getting a reaver if theres a fast third and scout with an early pressure zealot to see whats going on in the main to try and find if hes going lair or not. if theres no fast third then I wouldn't expect a bust play coming out after opponent see's your walled in unless you're maybe terran or something.
Theres a lot of scenario's that can happen but I know Protoss can hold because I do a lot of 3 base aggression and the lesser toss plays die to it while the good ones hold and are way ahead after it.
Sorry, I made a mistake in my post so it was a bit misleading. I was actually talking about 2/3 hatch hydra (and not about 3base/5hatch hydra bust). Those build actually hit way before the 9 minutes mark and I usually have only 2 or 3 units out when the first wave of hydra reach my base. For example, you can check the game on Match Point (vs Danko) posted earlier by Kabel. In this game (like in all my games against him), I couldn't check if he was going for Lair with my scouting probe so I didn't know if he was going for 2hatch hydra, 2hatch muta or for a more standard build like 3base spire into 5hatch hydra. I was still able to stop the rush despite starting my canons too late and despite my bad sim city but you can see that without canon, I would have died immediatly. To stop the same push on Breaking Point, I would have to make 3 additionals canons to cover the backdoor entrance. That's a lot of investisment, especially if he doesnt commit and transition into muta...
Concerning fast Reaver on 2 bases: I don't know if it is popular on EU but so far, I have yet to see someone using this kind of build in PvZ. From my BW experience, I tend to think that Reaver can't be used in this matchup without Corsairs support because of how strong muta can be if you are not ready for them. Feel free to post some replay of this build so I can see how Protoss play PvZ on NA.
|
On October 05 2012 20:19 Kabel wrote:
How can flanking become more important in Starbow?
In BW, players often tried to flank the opponent in combats. They attacked from multiple angles at the same time in an engagement. That gave an advantage compared to if players just attacked from one front.
In SC2 we rarely see players flank each others armies. It feels like there is no reward in it, when you might as well attack with everything from one front and get a good concave.
The main clear reason for this is the change in pathing (units no longer stumble upon themselves nearly at all). Before, the more units coming from one angle meant more stumbling (units started to even go backwards), resulting in a longer time it took before the units were in range to attack the defenders, which often resulted in a loss for the attacker. If you (Kabel) don't want to change smart pathing, and you don't want to force moving units to spread out more (which would have a similar effect to "dumb pathing" -- and is what I keep saying this mod needs...), there are other smaller fixes you could try.
Consider looking at units that really NEEDED flanks one at a time. The zergling is the iconic "flanking unit" in my mind. You had to get a flank to maximize surface area for zerglings to be effective. But what is different about the SC2 zergling that makes flanks ineffective? Here is my reasoning: SC:BW zerglings were bigger, so they couldn't surround the enemy in the same numbers as in SC2. SC:BW zerglings were slower, so they couldn't get to the enemy as quickly or guarantee a surround (like they can in sc2).
Both of these nerfs were offset but two important things. 1) SC:BW zerglings were much meatier. They were fragile, yes, but even huge numbers of sc2 zerglings literally melt in a couple seconds to the high dps armies in SC2. And 2) SC:BW zerglings HAD INSANELY HIGH dps. If the zerglings could actually get to a unit before dying, they did MASSIVE damage. In comparison... sc2 zerglings do almost nothing and, in the late game, are useful only as clean up units, counter attack units, or mineral dumps.
I think the damage scaling of the zergling made it awesome. Early game it wasn't too powerful, but late game, upgraded cracklings did crazy amounts of damage, and they were a staple in almost all zerg compositions.
In SC2, putting in the SC:BW zergling might help make flanks better, but I personally don't think it would be enough. I think the zergling DPS needs to be as powerful as BW zerglings, but SC2 zerglings as so mass-able, maybe don't make them as "meaty" as SC:BW zerglings.
So there is one example of how you can look at units individually and try to reason out how to make them more flank friendly. I don't think you are going to find one easy "fix" to suddenly making flanking awesome in the game.
|
If you want to encourage "flanking" then you probably need to encourage splitting the enemy's army. Forcefield, Abduct, knockback and slowing effects etc. all serve that purpose
|
I love this map/mod. It's awesome! Much more fun than normal SC2. I just wish more people played it 
|
Community is slowly growing. Most of the time there is someone to play with (on eu at least ^^).
|
Its an ai/smart pathing/control group problem.
|
Flanking is rewarding. Not as much as in BW but enough so people will start using it with time. Just give people stable version for couple of months imho.
|
On October 05 2012 20:19 Kabel wrote:
How can flanking become more important in Starbow?
In BW, players often tried to flank the opponent in combats. They attacked from multiple angles at the same time in an engagement. That gave an advantage compared to if players just attacked from one front.
In SC2 we rarely see players flank each others armies. It feels like there is no reward in it, when you might as well attack with everything from one front and get a good concave.
I want to comment on this, because it has to do with something I've felt strongly about since the early days of WoL beta. And it's something that I've only rarely heard come up in all the theorycrafting on this board.
It has to do with Durability vs Power.
By Durability I mean all stats - on all units and structures - that defend against damage (HP, armor, shields etc).
By Power I mean all the strength attacking units have to inflict damage.
SC2 is heavily weighted so that the attacking units have so much Power and do so much damage, that the Durability of the units is compromised. This accomplishes the following:
- Battles are shorter. Big balls of units melt in a matter of seconds
- Less time to micro - on both the attacking and defending sides
- Less time to reinforce - on both sides
So one of the most comprehensive things that could be done to break up deathballs - AND encourage more micro and flanking - would be to globally increase Durability over all units and structure globally in the game on a percentage basis.
The number wouldn't necessarily have to be a lot. You wouldn't want to overdo it.
Also - by doing it globally on ALL units and structures - this does not affect balance BETWEEN units and structures. This is a completely separate proposition to 'balance'
I would think somewhere between 20 / 30% increase in Durability in all units and structures on all races in the game would be the right figure.
This way?
- Battles last longer, so
- More time to creatively micro and fight
- More time to move units and flank
- More time to reinforce
- More time to macro and upgrade simultaneously
This is something so fundamental that seems like the 1000 pound elephant that people are missing.
Up the Durability globally 20 / 30%
I'd like to hear peoples thoughts on this. Also, Kabel how difficult would this be to do?
|
On October 05 2012 20:19 Kabel wrote:
How can flanking become more important in Starbow?
In BW, players often tried to flank the opponent in combats. They attacked from multiple angles at the same time in an engagement. That gave an advantage compared to if players just attacked from one front.
In SC2 we rarely see players flank each others armies. It feels like there is no reward in it, when you might as well attack with everything from one front and get a good concave.
I disagree.
in current SC2 it is common for particularly zerg players to flank the enemy, it is often vital for a favourable outcome to the zerg in midgame. (lategame broodlord balls excluded)
at times a protoss will also flank a terran or protoss enemy using recently warped in units from a nearby strategically located pylon.
though I agree that terran and protoss utilize flanking much much less than zerg do (again, excluding broodlord balls which does not utilize flanking).
but on the topic of encouraging flanking:
there are 2 ways I can think of going about it, either
a) make maps where attacking from only 1 angle will yield very low army efficiency, such as highly constricted terrain.
(punishing bad play)
or
b) make units spread out more (thus making the fringe units more vulnerable, thus rewarding flanks with higher efficiency).
(rewarding good play)
note that they are actually two sides of the same coin, making units spread out more means an army is bigger in size in comparison to before, which means that the terrain is more restricted relative to before.
in the same way, punishing bad play and rewarding good play is also two sides of the same coin, rewarding good play means you buff better players, which in turn means it is a relative nerf to worse players which means it punishes bad play.
have a nice day
//Roblin
|
Personally the only reason I don't flank with zealots in SC2 is because they're too slow to do it effectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
