|
On October 06 2012 02:58 Von wrote:Show nested quote +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?
first of all, a 1000 pound elephant is a tiny elephant, the biggest elephant ever shot (according to wikipedia) weighed 24000 pounds, so a decent ballpark guess on an average elephant would be 20000 pounds, 1000 pound elephant is barely even a newborn baby.
furthermore, I'm not opposed to upping durability.
I remember kabel sending me a PM a while ago about precisely this, saying something along the lines of:
"battles are at times too short, I want to increase survivability, do you see anything horribly wrong with that?"
unfortunately when I search now I don't find the PM, must be buried somewhere in the PM list.
I think I replied that I didn't think battles were too short but it might be worth looking into.
anywho, I agree that upping survivability will have those effects, some in higher degree than others, however, when looking at it from a purely flanking perspective I think higher survivability discourages flanking because the enemy will be able to retreat from bad positioning with fewer losses and because of the same reason bad positioning will be more forgiving. thus more noobfriendly.
whether that is a good or bad thing is up for discussion.
furthermore, increasing survivability by 20 percent is the same as nerfing all spell effects damage by 16.67% (such as storm, plague, irradiate, snipe, nuke etc) so they should probably be buffed by 20% to compensate.
(playing with percentages is a little weird, its important to remember that a buff by 20% is not a nerf by 20% for the others, a good example is a buff of 100% is doubling the value, so the respective nerf is to halve that value, which is a 50% nerf, not a 100% nerf)
|
Hm, why does he have it so that if you click play instead of private game, it just searches for players? How do we choose our race if we just click play?
|
I definitely agree with the idea behind increasing durability of all units, but if you do that you'll need to do significant rebalancing. The most obvious thing I can think of is that melee units will be stronger because it'll still take the same time for them to get into attacking range but everything lives longer in general, so overall they'll be attacking for a greater percentage of the battle than before.
|
I think flanking was better because BW had turning speed values, whereas WoL is instant turn (why stutterstep is so effective) This makes flanking give a slight advantage in that the opponent loses time turning to face each threat. Also it splits the splash to give the attacker a bonus.
|
On October 06 2012 04:26 nilsheam wrote:
I think flanking was better because BW had turning speed values, whereas WoL is instant turn (why stutterstep is so effective) This makes flanking give a slight advantage in that the opponent loses time turning to face each threat. Also it splits the splash to give the attacker a bonus.
There is turning speed in SC2 too. For most units, this speed is actually way higher than in BW (for example, Marines turn almost instantly) and that's why it look like there is instant turn.
|
If it's difficult for anything but the front few lines to attack, then flanking becomes more important. This dynamic can be accomplished in many ways that people have already mentioned, but the most important are:
1. Spacing units out (so that the unit's range becomes a natural limitiation),
2. Choking units off, whether that's using the maps, abilities (offensive or defensive in nature) and ground control units that limit attack paths.
I don't really agree that making units live longer makes flanking more important, it just makes flanking more time-critical. On the other hand making units live longer does increase micro-potential, but that's a different question than the one that was asked.
|
Theres plenty of flanking in Starbow oO if theres not it's not mechanic based it's because of SC2 kids playing Starbow the same way they play SC2 :/ you can easily and efficiently flank in Starbow.
|
On October 06 2012 03:40 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 02:58 Von wrote: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? first of all, a 1000 pound elephant is a tiny elephant, the biggest elephant ever shot (according to wikipedia) weighed 24000 pounds, so a decent ballpark guess on an average elephant would be 20000 pounds, 1000 pound elephant is barely even a newborn baby.
lol. Well ... tru. It's "... that huge animal of unspecified size standing right in our face right now and hardly anyone is mentioning" ..pretty much.
furthermore, increasing survivability by 20 percent is the same as nerfing all spell effects damage by 16.67% (such as storm, plague, irradiate, snipe, nuke etc) so they should probably be buffed by 20% to compensate.
(playing with percentages is a little weird, its important to remember that a buff by 20% is not a nerf by 20% for the others, a good example is a buff of 100% is doubling the value, so the respective nerf is to halve that value, which is a 50% nerf, not a 100% nerf)
Interesting, I hadn't considered that - as spell effects serve as 'game changers' that can sway the battle dramatically one way or another - it might be important to account for them separately in order for them to continue functioning well in that role. Good point.
|
why is the only good spell on the arbiter gone?
|
On October 06 2012 05:28 kuroshiro wrote:
I don't really agree that making units live longer makes flanking more important, it just makes flanking more time-critical. On the other hand making units live longer does increase micro-potential, but that's a different question than the one that was asked.
Making units live longer, gives more time to take advantage of flanking - when flanking would be advantageous.
Taking this to an extreme to illustrate: If two large armies come together and instantly melt each other, and there is 0 time to micro, than there is 0 time to position units for flanking ( this is assuming you have not per-positioned units to flank before the engagement)
This way the side with the greatest number of units / overall firepower always wins. Because there is no time to micro.
However if the same two large armies come together, with the same overall Power, but the units live for 30 to 40 seconds (or whatever is determined to be the right value) - then there is more time for the battle to play out and swing in either direction.
This way the side that has the numerical disadvantage has more opportunities to swing the battle back in their direction. Through superior / more intelligent micro. Or better macro / reinforcement.
Or, in this case, to see an area where it's advantageous to flank, and maneuvering units around the battlespace to do so.
This can be seen as a major improvement for defenders advantage. Battles become more interesting, more fun. More comeback stories.
More moments like ".. oh snap! I can't believe he came back from that with that awesome thing he just did"
|
Hey, guys! I really want to thank all those people related to the creation of this wonderful mod! It is soooo fun to play! I will try to convert as many sc2 friends into Starbow as possible.
Thank you!
|
On October 06 2012 05:28 kuroshiro wrote:
If it's difficult for anything but the front few lines to attack, then flanking becomes more important. This dynamic can be accomplished in many ways that people have already mentioned, but the most important are:
1. Spacing units out (so that the unit's range becomes a natural limitiation),
2. Choking units off, whether that's using the maps, abilities (offensive or defensive in nature) and ground control units that limit attack paths.
I don't really agree that making units live longer makes flanking more important, it just makes flanking more time-critical. On the other hand making units live longer does increase micro-potential, but that's a different question than the one that was asked.
I agree with this right here. I dont think making units more durable is better than the quotted solution.
Also third way to accomplish fewer lines attacking is reducing range on units. This was actually tried in Starbow but I dont remember what happened to it.
|
All of you have many good points regarding flanking and what factors that makes it worthwile to do. I will not change anything right now though, since I need to understand it better before I change anything like that. I will keep it in my backhead (and I bookmarked the last page) and see how the gameplay continues to evolve before I make changes that "encouarges" more flanking.
I will instead continue to focus on getting the races more balanced and designed. With good design I mean that the game and all races shall have more depth and potential options in them than they have in SC2 and maybe even in BW! And they shall have complete spells, units and upgrades. -_-
Since I have a day off tomorrow, at saturday, I will finally get a new patch up for NA and EU, even with some changes to the Zerg spells. More about that tomorrow. Lets discuss another thing.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6VwOx.jpg)
One thing in the Starbow gameplay is the high ground advantage. It means that all ranged units on low ground that shoots up at units at high ground deals 30% less damage. (In BW it was a 50% chance to miss)
For over a month ago I started to notice that it was not working properly. All units are not effected and it does not work in all scenarios in the game. Sometimes units gain the bonus, sometimes they don´t. I don´t know why this happen. I have tried to fix it, but I haven´t been able to solve it. So I have actually had it removed from the game for ca 4 weeks now. And I have barely told anybody about it to see if anyone would notice. I even consider to not bring it back. Let me explain why:
- There is another way to add a high ground bonus to the game: smaller ramps and choke points all over the map. If only few units can push up a ramp, the defeing players on the top will get a better engagement. In this picture, the blue stalkers can all shoot at the red stalkers who pushes up. Only 2 red stalkers can shoot back.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uM4p0.jpg)
- The reason I added a high ground bonus is to make fewer units able to defeat a larger army. Day-9 has mentioned that a boring factor in SC2 is that you can look at two opposing armies and determine the outcome quite well. Micro and terrain barely influences the battles. (Not compared to BW, he argues.) Thats why I added a high ground advantage. If a weaker army picks a fight at a good spot, it can punish or fight better vs a larger army. Again, this is also archievable with smaller choke points and ramps.
- Where is the high ground bonus? Look at the picture below. Where must the stalkers stand to gain the bonus? Can players and spectators determine that information by looking at the game? The high ground bonus have very unclear boundaries.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jK4WA.jpg)
- It requires more work and more headaches for me to get it function. Ok, if it is really important for the gameplay, it can be worth the effort. But I am doubtful if it really is. I have rarely seen people, even players familiar with Starbow, position their units to benefit from the high ground bonus. Except when standing at ramps...
So my question is: Is the high ground bonus a crucial factor for the Starbow gameplay? Will smaller ramps, choke points and other types of terrain have a similar impact on the defenders advantage and the gameplay?
|
|
|
Well, please explain your thoughts then.
|
High ground advantage is HUGE. It makes smaller armies with better positioning beat larger armies with poor positioning. Given the range of most SC2 units, I don't think small chokes do enough to give defender advantage for zerg especially (no great splash unit). The more advantage positioning has, the better imo
|
But in what scenarios, except at ramps or choke points, are units actually fighting from low to high ground? We rarely see units on top of a cliff shoot at units below a cliff, unless there is a ramp involved
|
On October 06 2012 09:33 Kabel wrote:
So my question is: Is the high ground bonus a crucial factor for the Starbow gameplay?
the current system doesnt make high ground worth holding.
|
make it on top of the ramp as far as determining the boundries? the ramp is neutral. I think having terrain bonuses adds more positioning and fun to the gameplay, so you should try getting it to work properly ^_^
|
On October 06 2012 10:09 Kabel wrote:
But in what scenarios, except at ramps or choke points, are units actually fighting from low to high ground? We rarely see units on top of a cliff shoot at units below a cliff, unless there is a ramp involved
ask yourself this:
is that the fault of the MOD or the fault of the maps?
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/267_New Heartbreak Ridge.jpg
see this map?
high ground mechanic was huge on this map.
perhaps consider having very large ramps as well as very small ramps?
that is an example of situations where highground would be easily exploited.
its late and there are probably a little bit lot more I can say on the subject, but right now I want my sleep and I can't think of anything of the top of my head.
On October 06 2012 10:44 nilsheam wrote:
make it on top of the ramp as far as determining the boundries? the ramp is neutral. I think having terrain bonuses adds more positioning and fun to the gameplay, so you should try getting it to work properly ^_^
I agree that "terrain modifiers" make the game more interesting, but I would also like to highlight the importance of not overdoing it.
if everything is special then nothing is special.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
