|
On October 22 2012 02:17 purakushi wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 21 2012 22:43 JohnMadden wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2012 22:00 Kabel wrote:+ Show Spoiler + - A modified version of Inject. I will try to explain it clearly.
It makes larvas spawn X% faster from a hatchery.
On top of that, you can not upgrade, morph into lair/hive or train Queens from the hatchery while it is being injected.
You can not use inject on a hatchery that is already busy morphing, training or researching.
You CAN still produce units from larvas. As normal.Why? The reason it shuts down the other functions of the hatchery is mainly due to the editor. The new Inject gives the hatchery a buff that manipulates the Time Scale. All time related things is faster on the hatchery, including spawning larvas. Hence, researches and morphs would be built faster too, just as if it were chrono boosted. One way to overcome this problem is to simply make it unusable on a hatchery that is busy with other stuff. It also adds a small decision making to Inject. The best thing is NOT to always use it as soon as you can. Why is it a good thing that larvas are spawned faster? I think this will have a positive effect on the gameplay. In SC2 I do not like the fact that Zerg can save huge amount of larvas, store up resources and within 30 seconds build 50-75 units when needed. Just like that. I prefer if Zerg builds units in smaller ways more often. It would force a stream of flooding Zerg units roaming across the map to the rally point, rather than big blobs. Don't get me wrong. Zergs ability to spawn many units at the same time is important and unique. It will still be possible. Just not to the absurd extent we see in SC2. It also forces Inject to be used at appropriate times. If you have 3 larvas in a hatchery and no resources to use them, there is no reason to Inject. This will add another small type of decision making to the spell. It would also mean that Zerg would probably be the race that macros the most, since larvas can pop quite fast and often. Right now in Starbow, I don´t feel I have to macro that much due to the ability to create large waves of units when needed. I can look at the enemy army attacking and just "Ok he has that shit. Now I make X units of this type and I kill his army." If the macro is divided into smaller steps, each step requires its own decision. + Show Spoiler +The production waves in SC2/Starbow:
- 8 drones
- 22 Hydras
- 6 Infestors
- 40 Zerglings
- 16 drones
With new inject:
- 4 drones
- 2 drones
- 2 hydras
- 6 hydras
- 4 Hydras
- 16 Zerglings
- 4 Zerglings
- 4 Zerglings
- 2 Infestors
- 12 Drones On top of all this, I will maybe make it usable on Zerg units that morph. So you can target a morphing lurker, baneling, overseer, broodlord or corruptor and it will morph faster. This would add a bit more versatility to the spell. (even though it feels a bit like Chrono boost) But it all comes down to how I manage to create this in the editor. I am working on it now and there are some restrictions I need to overcome. But the result will probably be something like this. That on the other hand sounds like a great idea! Instead of giving the Zerg instant larvae, it forces the player to decide whether it's time to tech or produce units! I'm really curious as to whether it's going to emphasize the drone vs unit aspect of larvae management or just leave it as it is (as far as I know, right now saturation for Zerg is achieved quickly and easily?), but on paper, it seems like a very interesting modification. +1 to this. I like the idea of inject making larvae spawn X% faster from a hatchery for Y seconds. It makes inject necessary while not detracting from the use of later game macro hatcheries, as well as makes unit creation versus teching choices more important.
This is what I was originally suggesting. It changes the pace of the game and gives you thoughtful energy management.
EDIT:
I'm watching yck7's stream -- P cannot be this passive against Zerg. You can't tech on two base without an aggressive poke. A good tech AFTER a gateway poke (usually pure zealot due to tech time on stalkers) is reavers, then you can take 3rd and map control with good aggression.
Bad play vs current Zerg.
2ND EDIT:
Danko late on expansions, not attacking in a concerted way with his hydra/lurk. Late lurkers, no reavers. Not... optimal ... play ...
Thoughts I posted in twitch chat while watching stream:
» P can prevent that 4th from going down at that timing
» Danko's not playing well here. He should have hatches at more expansions
» Easy income, then he can a-move with hydras and win
» at this point if P has reavers out he can win
» And he doesn't even have lurkers
» Hydra supply is so low
» they're strong units
3RD EDIT:
ARGH NO HYDRA MICRO MAKES MY EYES BLEED
And favoring armor over attack on zerg units X_X
4th and final edit:
If you cut drones when you get your 4th hatchery up, so that you have optimal return on each drone, you must go all-in and actually go balls to the wall with your attack. You cannot hang back and poke around. You tech to lurk and go all-in, you hydra all-in, or you make more drones and expansions behind light hydra pressure. You can't cut all econ like that.
|
Is Freeze watching the stream? This is Capn. o.o
EDIT: For NA->EU conversation, dec, myself, and purakushi are all in twitch chat.
|
Don't use a pylon as part of your wall bro.
|
Thx for casting !!!!  good games ...
|
On October 22 2012 03:23 CapnAmerica wrote:
This is what I was originally suggesting. It changes the pace of the game and gives you thoughtful energy management.
EDIT:
I'm watching yck7's stream -- P cannot be this passive against Zerg. You can't tech on two base without an aggressive poke. A good tech AFTER a gateway poke (usually pure zealot due to tech time on stalkers) is reavers, then you can take 3rd and map control with good aggression.
Bad play vs current Zerg.
I don't understand your remarks.
I did a +1 zealot aggressive poke. With this poke + scouting from Corsairs, I saw that he was low on eco and that he was going for a lot of hydra. There is no reason to be aggressive vs this kind of strat, that's why I played defensive. You also tell me that teching on 2 bases is a bad idea. Why? Stargate into Templar tech is a standard build in BW and when it come to PvZ, Starbow is very similar to BW so I don't understand why it's a bad strategy. Concerning Reavers, I agree that they are better than Templars vs this kind of hydra bust, but I started my tech way before knowing what he was doing. In this case, I usually choose to go for the safest strategy (stargate into templars) because teching to Reavers without a high Corsairs count isn't a good idea against a Zerg like Danko who play muta in half of his PvZ.
If you can post a few replays of NA's PvZ, it would be nice. I really want to see how you play it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am just about to sleep, but I saw the question in the chat about the new maps.
Well, basically I dont have any new maps to send you. I use Astro Haze, Fighting Spirit and Hunting Grounds on EU, apart from the ones you have on NA. They will most likely be removed soon since they do not fit so well with Starbow. So I haven´t sent them to NA since I am planning to replace them anyways.
I might be able to get my hands on Destination and Equinox, which I think would fit the map pool well. (I have written to the authors and I am waiting for them to send the files to me)
|
If you don't mind, I'd like to contribute some ideas. First off, thanks to Kabel and decembercalm and everyone who helped create this project. I think this could potentially become the future of starcraft with enough support.
Zerg Macro: Adding Dynamic
- What if we divided zerg's macro ability into two. One promotes reactive/passive play, while the other favors aggression. My idea is another queen ability which forces that decision. Called something like "Fertilize", she makes an egg evolve to a chrysalis like capsule which gives the unit inside the "zergling value pack" of two for the price of one. It would cost something like 35 energy and double total build time and supply. Basically it doesn't make sense to use on a drone due to lost mining time, and you actually end up with less units overall that can't be built in reaction to an opponents attack when compared with inject. Not to mention you either need a good memory or need to manually check which egg has what inside of it. What this solves is aggressive play and small skirmishes are now more efficient. You are also more likely to move out when you have to wait 2 cycles before reinforcements hatch.
Broodlord
- Nobody really likes this unit, but zerg does need a siege unit to take the role of the guardian and this is all we have. The problem is that it has no micro potential for the user and it seems to overextend its role by providing so much crowd control. I think it would be cool to increase air damage and allow it to keep broodlings, but they are in the form of parasites so only manifest when the target is killed. This requires broods to target fire enemies to achieve similar results as previously. Alternately, you could intentionally avoid killing units and focus on infecting them with as many parasites as possible thus setting off a chain reaction of broodlings bursting out of them. They could be set as a status like "Parasite" and able to stack to a certain extent, so a unit that is being healed or repaired could amass enough broodling parasites inside them to be considered a threat to their own army and be exiled. They should be able to work against biological, mech, and buildings.
|
On October 22 2012 07:42 Kabel wrote:
I am just about to sleep, but I saw the question in the chat about the new maps.
Well, basically I dont have any new maps to send you. I use Astro Haze, Fighting Spirit and Hunting Grounds on EU. They will probably be removed soon since they do not fit so well with Starbow. So simply I have nothing to send you ; /
Save Hunting Grounds!
|
Save Hunting Grounds
Why? The map encouarges deathball play so hard. (Like all SC2 maps do .. )
The maps (Astro and Hunting) looks nice and are well made. We just see the same type of play on them as in SC2. Thats why I am so eager to find better fitting maps, which I think would really benefit the gameplay.
|
On October 22 2012 07:49 Kabel wrote:Why? The map encouarges deathball play so hard. (Like all SC2 maps do .. ) The maps (Astro and Hunting) looks nice and are well made. We just see the same type of play on them as in SC2. Thats why I am so eager to find better fitting maps, which I think would really benefit the gameplay.
Well, fair enough. What are you looking for in those maps though, is there any specific combination of elements that makes you feel it'll work out nicely or are you just speaking from experience? Although I have to admit, that NoSCV v Danko game on Astro Haze smelled StarcrafTwoey.
|
@NYContributor
Congrats to your first post ^^
I have tried both of those ideas already. The macro thing I used was kinda similar to the one you describe and was interesting in theory... but it was so messy, weird and hard to balance when I tried it in game so I scrapped it.
Broodlords did indeed give a buff to an enemy unit. When the unit died broodlings spawned from it. It sucked since it destroyed so much of the Broodlord feeling. Zerg has (and it was worse before) just recieved a lot of nerfes and removed stuff. The broodlord was a unit that just felt worse without the broodling. So I reintroduced the Broodling again, in lack of a better solution.
@Custom keys
I've heard that its hard to customize the lurker burrow hotkey R. Anyone having problems to customize burrow key for lurkers?
@Map Pool
Well, fair enough. What are you looking for in those maps though, is there any specific combination of elements that makes you feel it'll work out nicely or are you just speaking from experience? Although I have to admit, that NoSCV v Danko game on Astro Haze smelled StarcrafTwoey.
You mean what I am looking for in Destination etc, or what I was looking for in Hunting Ground and Astro Haze?
The maps looked good at pictures but they did not really be as I expected them when I played on them. Again, the maps are not bad. Its just that I've had so many similar maps in the map pool over the ca 8 months I´ve been working on the mod. I am just curious to find out how the gameplay can be when played on maps with a different layout. Basically the maps must enchance some crucial aspects of Starbow:
- There must be more smaller ramps and choke points. It allows area control units to shine. It also makes a smaller army able to defend vs a superior army, if players use the terrain to their advantage. Its also harder for deathballs to roam freely. It might also encourage more flanking since its hard to attack with full army from the same angle.
- Bases must be more seperated. In SC2, bases are very close to each other. Its rather easy to destroy several bases in no time, if you attack with your deathball vs a cluster of expansions. If bases are more seperated we might see more harassment and smaller skirmishes at multiple fronts.
Of the maps in the map pool, I do like Match Point the most.
But I have to be realistic too. I can´t just whine about what kind of imaginary maps I want to see. I gotta create them myself then.. Unfortunatly I suck hard at making melee maps.. So if I find no maps on the forum that fits into my "ideal" picture of the perfect map, then I gotta use the maps people offer me and stop being a dick about it. -_-
|
Just wanted to say great mod (gameplay wise) and keep up the good work!
Just wanted to ask is there any particular reason for the faster attack speed (base) on zerglings in Sbow?(in sc2 its 0.7 while in sbow its 0.55 i think). Also what about making Hydras have a slower attack speed and compensate that for more hp, making them still vulnerable to tank fire/reaver/storm but slightly stronger vs other units. Furthermore, i dont fully understand the reason for zerg to have both lurker and banelings, in most of the cases the lurker would be much more efficient (cost and attack wise) as they do not have a kamikaze attack and are relatively fast and easy to maneuver. Lastly, is there any particular reason to remove emp from the science vessel and give it back to the ghost? The only problem is see with that is TvP where bio usually melts to reaver/storm/ upgraded gateway units and mech has enough firepower to combat against P straight up. Investing into barracks/infantry infrastructure actually hinders terrans ability to use it as upgrades dont go with the ghots, in return could make emp less powerful.
I understand getting bombarded with suggestions balancewise is frustrating and annoying, just wanted to try to help.
|
On October 22 2012 07:56 Kabel wrote:@Map PoolShow nested quote +Well, fair enough. What are you looking for in those maps though, is there any specific combination of elements that makes you feel it'll work out nicely or are you just speaking from experience? Although I have to admit, that NoSCV v Danko game on Astro Haze smelled StarcrafTwoey. You mean what I am looking for in Destination etc, or what I was looking for in Hunting Ground and Astro Haze? The maps looked good at pictures but they did not really be as I expected them when I played on them. Again, the maps are not bad. Its just that I've had so many similar maps in the map pool over the ca 8 months I´ve been working on the mod. I am just curious to find out how the gameplay can be when played on maps with a different layout. Basically the maps must enchance some crucial aspects of Starbow: - There must be more smaller ramps and choke points. It allows area control units to shine. It also makes a smaller army able to defend vs a superior army, if players use the terrain to their advantage. Its also harder for deathballs to roam freely. It might also encourage more flanking since its hard to attack with full army from the same angle. - Bases must be more seperated. In SC2, bases are very close to each other. Its rather easy to destroy several bases in no time, if you attack with your deathball vs a cluster of expansions. If bases are more seperated we might see more harassment and smaller skirmishes at multiple fronts. Of the maps in the map pool, I do like Match Point the most. But I have to be realistic too. I can´t just whine about what kind of imaginary maps I want to see. I gotta create them myself then.. Unfortunatly I suck hard at making melee maps.. So if I find no maps on the forum that fits into my "ideal" picture of the perfect map, then I gotta use the maps people offer me and stop being a dick about it. -_-
I'm asking, since I'm still working on Neo Anarchy and I'd love to finish the map in a way, that'd suit the style you want to promote with this mod. It's a long way to go and I'll need a lot of suggestions, hence the question. What you said is already a lot and it will save me some time with experimenting.
|
|
|
+ Show Spoiler +On October 22 2012 08:13 Mr.Apathetic wrote:
Just wanted to say great mod (gameplay wise) and keep up the good work!
Just wanted to ask is there any particular reason for the faster attack speed (base) on zerglings in Sbow?(in sc2 its 0.7 while in sbow its 0.55 i think). Also what about making Hydras have a slower attack speed and compensate that for more hp, making them still vulnerable to tank fire/reaver/storm but slightly stronger vs other units. Furthermore, i dont fully understand the reason for zerg to have both lurker and banelings, in most of the cases the lurker would be much more efficient (cost and attack wise) as they do not have a kamikaze attack and are relatively fast and easy to maneuver. Lastly, is there any particular reason to remove emp from the science vessel and give it back to the ghost? The only problem is see with that is TvP where bio usually melts to reaver/storm/ upgraded gateway units and mech has enough firepower to combat against P straight up. Investing into barracks/infantry infrastructure actually hinders terrans ability to use it as upgrades dont go with the ghots, in return could make emp less powerful.
I understand getting bombarded with suggestions balancewise is frustrating and annoying, just wanted to try to help.
I recently changed Zerglings. I think the speed they have in SC2 is a problem due to the human limits. The fast speed offers little room for micro in combats since they move and die sooo fast. I looked a lot at the BW zerglings and they are microable to a larger degree. As a compensation I increased their attack speed. Yes, this makes them kill stuff even faster, but their slower move speed (roughly same as in BW) actually gives the enemy time to react to the Zergling onslaught. But this was just 3-4 days ago I changed this. So I can not tell yet if this is optimal.
I have experimented with Hydras having higher life and lower dmg. That kinda ruined the nature of the unit: fragile fast glascannons. Their low HP makes Zealot vs Hydra combat interesting and micro intense. They are more eager to dodge storms etc. When they had higher HP they could "tank" damage to a higher degree and it did not feel as exiting. Once Dark Swarm is researched, the fragile Hydras can laugh under their protective blanket..
I don´t see a problem with having both Lurkers and Banelings in the game. I don´t think they overlap enough to justify a removal either. They are both units that are useful in different ways, depending on the situation in the game. In most games, Lurkers are probably the better choice since they are permanent. But in some games, Banelings is the better choice. They are used and controlled in completely different ways.
I recently gave back EMP to the Ghost. I do not think the game benefits from having a few certain units that are optimal to build in the same matchup. Like literally, the only stuff you need. That was the case in TvP in BW. You needed Vultures, Tanks, Goliaths and Vessels with EMP. In Starbow, we saw history repeat itself.
Instead I try to spread out the power level over several different units, to make a larger variety of units being useful. I moved D-matrix from the Vessel to Medics. Suddenly Medics have an edge if T chooses to go bio + tanks. If you go for a bio build you get the advantage of getting acess to Ghosts, which has both EMP and Lockdown. Something you do not get if you go full metal mech. Still the Vessel has its own set of useful spells. Once the metagame will develop even more, we might see more variations in build orders than we did in BW. Atleast in TvP where we always saw T go for the same units since that was all he needed. The other units offered nothing useful. (But of course I gotta balance this too)
This is not something I do only for Terran. I try to archieve the same thing with P and Z. I try make all Protoss casters (Dark Archon, Arbiter, High Templar) useful in their own ways. HT shall not always be the best caster to get! Again, we rarely saw Dark Archons in BW. I want to distribute the power level. Thats also one of the reasons I keep Stalkers + Immortals in the game. Immortals offer the robust body and firepower - Stalkers offer mobility and anti-air.
|
|
|
On October 22 2012 05:19 hipo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 03:23 CapnAmerica wrote:
This is what I was originally suggesting. It changes the pace of the game and gives you thoughtful energy management.
EDIT:
I'm watching yck7's stream -- P cannot be this passive against Zerg. You can't tech on two base without an aggressive poke. A good tech AFTER a gateway poke (usually pure zealot due to tech time on stalkers) is reavers, then you can take 3rd and map control with good aggression.
Bad play vs current Zerg. I don't understand your remarks. I did a +1 zealot aggressive poke. With this poke + scouting from Corsairs, I saw that he was low on eco and that he was going for a lot of hydra. There is no reason to be aggressive vs this kind of strat, that's why I played defensive. You also tell me that teching on 2 bases is a bad idea. Why? Stargate into Templar tech is a standard build in BW and when it come to PvZ, Starbow is very similar to BW so I don't understand why it's a bad strategy. Concerning Reavers, I agree that they are better than Templars vs this kind of hydra bust, but I started my tech way before knowing what he was doing. In this case, I usually choose to go for the safest strategy (stargate into templars) because teching to Reavers without a high Corsairs count isn't a good idea against a Zerg like Danko who play muta in half of his PvZ. If you can post a few replays of NA's PvZ, it would be nice. I really want to see how you play it!
The breakdown (and I may post some replays, just being super lazy atm):
+1 Zealot timing comes late enough that Zerg has time to get up to 4 bases, hydra den, ling count to kill off push, as well as drone lead. It's not a stable timing window to hit. A second timing with +1 after an initial zealot poke to force many lings is totally viable though.
Stargate play is really hard to pull off. If you go SG and just make some corsairs and don't kill tons of overlords or deny detection while going DTs, you will lose. Reavers are WAY better to immediately tech to. I like to play SG and Twilight Openers, but they're just not as strong. Reavers shut down Hydra Lurk pushes, Hydra Ling pushes, and pure Hydra busts, all of which can smash a Protoss without them unless the Zerg is bad.
Stargate into HT takes too long to get running, you will die to any hydra all-in timing. Trust me, we've tested this. Your Zergs just aren't as potent with the hydra bust playstyle, or their macro.
Robotics is also better than Twilight because you get a WP fast to scout/gateway harass if he's passive and your reavers come in time to take a safe 3rd with simcity. If Zerg goes Muta, it doesn't happen when they're doing a hydra push. You can straight up win against Ling/Muta ZvP because Zealots are really good, and you can pressure until he snaps. Reavers can be used to target drones and Zerglings.
The reps themselves ... I've got reps, I just don't wanna dig through em at 12:19AM to find the right ones.  But basically your Zergs are not playing optimally and as a result your strategies are not improving fast enough to compensate.
No BM intended, I just hate watching people get away with stuff that ''doesn't work'' because their opponent doesn't know what to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
