|
On November 29 2012 02:30 MuATaran wrote:
Wow I am so sad that I didn't see this thread until now, I was actually thinking about figuring out how to work the map editor to try something like this lol. My question is whether or not there is a place/list that I can use to look at all the changes that have been made from SC2 to Starbow, I really want to try it out but I feel like just starting a game vs people who have been playing for some time would be a pretty silly game.
There has been a lot of changes back and forth. My tips is to create a starbow game vs easy cpu and just make every unit of the chosen race, a bit boring but it helped me out a lot. Do not use the unit tester maps, they are outdated (correct me if I'm wrong). Are you on EU or NA? We need more people 
|
If you are NA and want to play terran I'll teach you. We need more terran's on NA.
|
I think that the tank buff to massive is a good start. If it becomes too powerful against Protoss, I think a good next step would be to give archons 3 range instead of 2, so they can perhaps get 1-2 hits in (even though they are not the primary damage dealers) before they explode. This makes them very slightly more effective without having to change their tankiness or damage output.
I think mutalisks could use a slight HP buff, as they seem way more fragile compared to their BW counterparts. SC2 mutalisks always seem to have to run away (especially against marines); in BW, they can at least dish out a few volleys. If no HP buff, then at least make them move more like in BW. Actually, I would prefer the latter change to come first. The archon range increase can help Protosses deal with them, since storm is slower to deal damage. Turret HP can be buffed slightly to help against mutalisks, while not changing much for TvP.
|
On November 29 2012 02:54 Traceback wrote:
If you are NA and want to play terran I'll teach you. We need more terran's on NA.
I know that I am not the guy that originally asked, but I too am looking to get into Starbow, just wasn't really sure where to start. I'm only a gold league Terran (NA), but if you're willing to help teach me the ropes I would greatly appreciate it =).
Edit: Is there a chat channel for the game?
|
On November 29 2012 03:17 GattAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 02:54 Traceback wrote:
If you are NA and want to play terran I'll teach you. We need more terran's on NA. I know that I am not the guy that originally asked, but I too am looking to get into Starbow, just wasn't really sure where to start. I'm only a gold league Terran (NA), but if you're willing to help teach me the ropes I would greatly appreciate it =). Edit: Is there a chat channel for the game?
We meet in channel Starbow. During work hours, there may not be any/very many people in there, but there definitely should be people in the evenings/weekends.
Traceback's really good. You will be in good hands. >< For the most part, mechanics carries over from SC2/BW but learning the units/meta is a large part of it.
|
I think the tank change to damage to massive is a good first step before any drastic archon changes.
Tank damage to massive instead of armored or bonus to armored? Either way it will be bad solution.
A corsair buff, perferably one allowing them to micro against muta, would be nice. Allowing moving shot with sair would be a good first start, maybe also a slight increase in AOE radius since the natural spreading of muta in the sc2 engine hurts corsairs a lot. Corsairs MELT mutas. There is no need to buff their aoe. Their speed with upgrade is broken. Only possible buff for them is that "moving shot".
|
On November 29 2012 03:01 purakushi wrote:
I think that the tank buff to massive is a good start. If it becomes too powerful against Protoss, I think a good next step would be to give archons 3 range instead of 2, so they can perhaps get 1-2 hits in (even though they are not the primary damage dealers) before they explode. This makes them very slightly more effective without having to change their tankiness or damage output.
I think mutalisks could use a slight HP buff, as they seem way more fragile compared to their BW counterparts. SC2 mutalisks always seem to have to run away (especially against marines); in BW, they can at least dish out a few volleys. If no HP buff, then at least make them move more like in BW. Actually, I would prefer the latter change to come first. The archon range increase can help Protosses deal with them, since storm is slower to deal damage. Turret HP can be buffed slightly to help against mutalisks, while not changing much for TvP.
Muta's are fine, in bw it's not viable to go mass muta since you can only fit in 12 units per controlgroup and the micro is a lot harder. In sc2 you don't have this problem, that's why they're weaker, rightfully so. In pvz they are already strong enough (storm isn't even decent vs them in the current form and corsairs are unable to micro vs them).
edit: I'm talking about getting corsairs reactively, small numbers of corsairs don't accomplish anything
|
On November 29 2012 03:37 Danko__ wrote:Show nested quote + I think the tank change to damage to massive is a good first step before any drastic archon changes. Tank damage to massive instead of armored or bonus to armored? Either way it will be bad solution.
I meant tank damage to massive the same as their bonus to armoured. ZvP is fine with respect to archons; hydralisks do not need to do extra damage to them. Why is it a bad solution? Archons make TvP very difficult/impossible. The only other thing it will change is versus ultralisks, and right now frenzy/DS/ultra/ling kills everything. (Though, frenzy is the main issue there.)
On November 29 2012 03:38 SolidSMD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 03:01 purakushi wrote:
I think that the tank buff to massive is a good start. If it becomes too powerful against Protoss, I think a good next step would be to give archons 3 range instead of 2, so they can perhaps get 1-2 hits in (even though they are not the primary damage dealers) before they explode. This makes them very slightly more effective without having to change their tankiness or damage output.
I think mutalisks could use a slight HP buff, as they seem way more fragile compared to their BW counterparts. SC2 mutalisks always seem to have to run away (especially against marines); in BW, they can at least dish out a few volleys. If no HP buff, then at least make them move more like in BW. Actually, I would prefer the latter change to come first. The archon range increase can help Protosses deal with them, since storm is slower to deal damage. Turret HP can be buffed slightly to help against mutalisks, while not changing much for TvP. Muta's are fine, in bw it's not viable to go mass muta since you can only fit in 12 units per controlgroup and the micro is a lot harder. In sc2 you don't have this problem, that's why they're weaker, rightfully so. In pvz they are already strong enough (storm isn't even decent vs them in the current form and corsairs are unable to micro vs them). edit: I'm talking about getting corsairs reactively, small numbers of corsairs don't accomplish anything
Well, it's not that the micro is any harder; it is just that the mechanics of the game/mutalisks in BW allow for so much more control. You can play them loosely like how they are in SC2 if you wanted to. In fact, I think BW mutalisks are easier to control because they obey every command exactly. If you want to micro them harder, the game allows for that.
Also, I do not think it is because that there is infinite selection that mutalisks are "weaker". They are the same unit as BW. The thing that makes them seem weaker has to do with the other units in SC2 (everything deals more DPS and has perfect AI, so everything seems like paper because their HP is basically the same as in BW).
Stalkers may be getting reworked, and I also included buffs to archon to help deal with mutalisks. Even if they are in a group of >12, they fail in straight up engagements. While it is still in infancy, the nullifier can help deal with clumped up units like mutalisks (stasis). Static defenses are stronger in Starbow (chrono boosted cannons, etc), and, if necessary, they can be slightly buffed/balanced while not affecting army engagements.
I would like to note, however, that I would much prefer BW mutalisk mechanics than any direct buff to them, if I had to choose just one.
|
Hello. I have some busy days now due to exams. I will also be away during the weekend. So I will not be online much in the coming days. I will try to get a new patch up next week, since there are still areas in the game to work on. (Mostly design stuff, like how some units/abilites function etc) More about that later.
@Nullifier
I noticed some flaws in the design of it when I saw it in play. (Its hard to predict everything T_T) But keep reporting how the unit feels, how useful it is etc.
Of course there are balance concerns too, like cost/dmg/cast range/attack range etc. But I think mainly in design right now cause once that is nailed, the balance can be fine tuned.
@To newcomers who wanna try Starbow
Don´t worry if you are good or not or if you will win or lose. As long as you enjoy playing, observing and exporing the MOD, you have nothing to lose. But be aware that this project is still under development, so things will be changed. That is both good and bad. Its good for those who enjoy exploring the game and participate in the development and discuss problems, solutions etc. Its bad for those players who practices a build and develops a certain playstyle. Then all of a sudden I release a patch that brings them back to scratch.. : /
I aim to "complete" the design of Starbow before the year is over. All content for the races shall be set. Its only the balance that might take longer time to adjust. I will also try to get better content in the opening post when I get time, so its easier to get a grasp of the game
@Current game balance
I have not seen enough games with the new patch to determine how good tanks/archons/mutalisks/corsairs etc are. (I wish my days had more hours >.< ) But keep report and discuss balance concerns here in the thread. Its good to get more perspectives.
@New maps?
New maps anyone?
Oh map makers where art though?
|
Frenzy
On the NA server, ling/ultra/DS/frenzy has been destroying everything. It is too easy to pull off at how much damage it can do (i.e. just ez win).
1. It is possible to frenzy then consume then DS in a matter of a few seconds. A-move and you win, basically.
2. We should have spells and abilities that take skill and/or risk to use. Frenzy takes none of either. It is just a click and go type of spell with no risk involved.
Suggestion: Make it so that frenzied units take more damage. For example, since they move and attack faster by 20%, make them take 20% more damage. Numbers can be balanced. This puts more obligation on Zergs to position his/her army in such a way so that the first few tank volleys are wasted on non-frenzied units. It may not seem like much and players may not actually do it (too used to a-moving teehee), but it is something that would make a definite difference in outcome in terms of units remaining or win/lose.
I do not think changing the energy cost or anything like that of DS or frenzy is the correct balance change here. We do want to see these cool spells, but we just want them to have skill/risk involved. 
|
I will be adding some of my time to play this. Master Protoss here! Is the chat channel named Starbow?
|
On November 29 2012 04:39 purakushi wrote:FrenzyOn the NA server, ling/ultra/DS/frenzy has been destroying everything. It is too easy to pull off at how much damage it can do (i.e. just ez win). 1. It is possible to frenzy then consume then DS in a matter of a few seconds. A-move and you win, basically. 2. We should have spells and abilities that take skill and/or risk to use. Frenzy takes none of either. It is just a click and go type of spell with no risk involved. Suggestion: Make it so that frenzied units take more damage. For example, since they move and attack faster by 20%, make them take 20% more damage. Numbers can be balanced. This puts more obligation on Zergs to position his/her army in such a way so that the first few tank volleys are wasted on non-frenzied units. It may not seem like much and players may not actually do it (too used to a-moving teehee), but it is something that would make a definite difference in outcome in terms of units remaining or win/lose. I do not think changing the energy cost or anything like that of DS or frenzy is the correct balance change here. We do want to see these cool spells, but we just want them to have skill/risk involved.
I wholehearted agree with this suggestion. Right now frenzy is just a giant AOE stim for zerg with no health impact, it's crazy strong, especially with the DPS increases for both ultra and ling. It's a boring spell to walk with no cost trade off, and is a 1 click and forget at that. There is very little strategy involved since consume lets you recent said energy fast enough to have more then enough for dark swarm as well. Adding a glass cannon type tradeoff would make it much more interesting.
On November 29 2012 03:17 GattAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2012 02:54 Traceback wrote:
If you are NA and want to play terran I'll teach you. We need more terran's on NA. I know that I am not the guy that originally asked, but I too am looking to get into Starbow, just wasn't really sure where to start. I'm only a gold league Terran (NA), but if you're willing to help teach me the ropes I would greatly appreciate it =). Edit: Is there a chat channel for the game?
Add me, Traceback.904.
|
Regarding Frenzy:
My idea of a non AOE freeby stim is....
Frenzy
(Single target buff)
{
Affected unit receives a buff that increases target's armor and speed by 1
in addition, it also increases the speed and attack speed of surrounding units for 20 (ingame) seconds.
If frenzied unit dies, surrounding units are momentarily stunned (very short stun, like .5 seconds?), losing their previously given command.
}
The interaction with this is that you would apply a frenzy buff on units that are hard to kill (Aka Ultralisks) and the immediately surrounding units (Aka zerglings) receive the speed and attack speed buff. Obviously lings are already faster than ultras, so what the buff would do is apply a cooldown buff to units that pass near the frenzied units. That way the lings CAN (but dont have to) charge infront of the ultralisk and retain their buff long enough to do some damage.
Ex. Frenzy an Ultralisk, let it run around some ultras and lings, then send the frenzied ultras into the siege line with the lings trailing behind with the originally frenzied ultra to retain the buff longer....
Then battlecruiser show up out of no where--> yamato the original ultralisk--> all the ultras and lings that were previously frenzied by that ultralisk are stunned and lose their orders--> buys an extra siege tank volley off on the ultras and lings--> Terran barely holds --> Zerg gets a cost effective trade... then gets nuked to oblivion.
With this, I think we could make frenzy cost 125 or 150 energy, since this would make it difficult to spam it on a bunch of ultralisks for the extra armor.
Note:
Chain frenzied units will not affect normal units.
Original frenzy units will not apply buffs to other original frenzied units.
Thoughts?
(I think this is a slick way of forcing more interaction between zerg units, as opposed to just 'tweaking' the spell for balance)
|
With feedback added back to HT's, it has really hurt ghost's when complimenting mech. If you rely on ghosts at all vs archon you just die if he feedbacks, and if you have to emp templar, you cant EMP archon/zealot which is what you need to emp.
I think ghost gas cost of 150 probably needs to be reduced since it's so much easier for toss to counter ghosts now since they are getting templar anyway.
I'm not sure if this is the best fix, but right now ghosts kinda suck vs toss unless you are picture perfect with control. One tiny mis-micro and you can lose your whole army cause you don't have enough EMP. This is because if you are dumping 150 gas a pop into ghosts and you lose them, army is too small to deal with toss ball.
I don't have any experience yet but the idea that toss can just feedback bcs, medics, sci vessle, ghosts all with 1 unit that they always get in their army seems kinda weird...
|
On November 29 2012 11:34 Traceback wrote:
With feedback added back to HT's, it has really hurt ghost's when complimenting mech. If you rely on ghosts at all vs archon you just die if he feedbacks, and if you have to emp templar, you cant EMP archon/zealot which is what you need to emp.
I think ghost gas cost of 150 probably needs to be reduced since it's so much easier for toss to counter ghosts now since they are getting templar anyway.
I'm not sure if this is the best fix, but right now ghosts kinda suck vs toss unless you are picture perfect with control. One tiny mis-micro and you can lose your whole army cause you don't have enough EMP. This is because if you are dumping 150 gas a pop into ghosts and you lose them, army is too small to deal with toss ball.
I don't have any experience yet but the idea that toss can just feedback bcs, medics, sci vessle, ghosts all with 1 unit that they always get in their army seems kinda weird...
The fix:
Bring back forcefield (with HP). Templar now has forcefield by default and still can upgrade for storm. Forcefield costs 25 energy; templar still start with 50 energy, but max out at 100 instead of 200; no energy amulet . Makes you have to decide to use forcefield or save energy for storm. Also, it forces enemies to be smarter about their positioning for engagements but not possibly overly powerful like in SC2. Max 1 storm or max 4 forcefields. (or start 100, max 200, storm 125, forcefield 50 -- almost the same thing but they get 1 forcefield + 1 storm at max energy) If any unit can create a forcefield, you would think a high templar could, right? Mind powerz.
Bring back dark archon. Only spell is feedback; costs 50 energy; starting energy 75; maximum energy 200. Maybe also have mind control just for funzies (grab that lucky BC, arbiter/carrier, or ultralisk/swarm guardian), no need for upgrade, costs 125 energy (100 if you actually want to see it happen). Nerf its shield by 50. Yay red fun balls.
I'm joking. Though, it does sound kind of cool. lol
Another cool idea probably only in theory: "power overwhelming" for archons. Increase high templar fuse time by 10-15 seconds. For 10 seconds after they fuse, they get +1 range (yep, the energy can reach farther ><) and 20% attackspeed bonus. Could be the upgrade that no one gets. XD Yeah, I know Blizzard thought of something like this already.
|
Some comments/feedback about the mod:
(As background, I've spent a few years designing tactical RPG games/smallscale wargames as a hobby, and I'm in software engineering to maybe make games one day. So hopefully I can contribute something small at least, who knows)
1- Great work. I just gotta say, thanks for making this. If I wasn't in school I was honestly considering making something like this myself. This is foremost
Spider Mines
I experimented a lot with this tonight. In a word, the mines might be somewhat ineffective as-is. Since mines are pretty sweet conceptually, and fun to use in the game, it would be more interesting, for me at least, for them to be a little more useful.
It may be that the slow movement speed, small AOE and ability to destroy each other is really bad for someone who wants to practically use the mines. I frequently saw a little ball of zealots tank up to 5 mines and take only 80 damage to a single zealot or sometimes 2, with no other zealot even losing shields. This was because mines move so slowly that they merely gather around the unit when the first detonates, and that detonation blows all the rest of them up. They don't seem to have any capacity to simultaneously detonate. In order to use the mines a terran would have to spread them out far too much- currently, they can't be used to defend tank lines because only 1-2 will hurt the toss, and those don't do enough splash to actually stop the zealot advance.
I don't know how to fix this, or whether this is actually intended, but my input here is to either:
a-greatly increase the mines' AOE so that single mines can used against large clumps in the middle of the map, and actually significantly hurt those groups. This will increase mine friendly fire, which further forces them to be spread out, but makes the spreading-out more useful as well.
b- or else to make them single-target with no AOE. As is, this would be a huge improvement, but makes the mines less interesting.
c- or else to cause them to detonate for damage much like banelings ANY time they're destroyed. This would have strange consequences for mine sweeping I believe.
d- A possible workaround is that the mines could have a unique armor type, "mine", to which they do only 30 damage to outside of the 100% damage radius- tightly clustered mines would still destroy each other, but loose clusters could still detonate without a problem. The mine's AOE would probably have to be reduced too, so this would actually resemble b above.
e- greatly increase the acceleration of the mines: that way, the first mine to rise to the occasion will arrive, blow up, and all this potentially before the other mines have woken up and started on their way. I feel like this is bad for mine-targeting micro though.
f- some combination of the above?
Armor types and Siege Tanks
I always found in my own games that armor types can add important depth to a game, but they're hard to use without overusing them. For example, one can have a skirmisher unit decline to wear armor so that he can move around quickly, but he'll be extremely vulnerable to most dangers that can catch up with him. Armor types can also add a lot of stagnant rock-paper-scissors, hard countering to the game as well, which I've never personally liked.
So: the siege tank. It does 65 damage against armored units, but only 35 to light ("unarmored") units. That is to say that a naked man will be safer against their fire than a man in a marauder outfit (luckily the marauders deserve it. Terrible unit). This is obviously to balance their use against zerglings, hydralisks and marine balls, but zealots are in a whole other category and simply hard-counter tanks at the moment, especially if the protoss player uses a warp prism. For that matter, zerglings pretty much tear up tank lines too.
Numerically, it takes 5.1 siege tank shots to take down a single zealot, 5 including splash from nearby zealots being shelled, and this leading zealot has given his life so that the other 10 zealots may now wreck the entire siege line. Zealots simply soak up tank shells like sponges.
For a terran to play a strong, positional game against protoss, or even zerg for that matter, the terran needs to be able to deal with zealots (and zerglings) without resorting to mass vultures as an only-resort. Minefields are fairly unreliable, they seem like more of a harassment mid-field item at the moment.
Or, in other words, the tanks cannot HOLD GROUND without so much vulture support that the tanks are actually not a meaningful part of the army. This encourages clumping your army up a great deal to try to protect your tanks.
I don't know if anybody agrees with me or not, but I feel like it would be easier for Starbow to be more of a positional game if the more positional units were more viable. My own 2 cents about possible changes, if anyone does agree with me:
a- Change the zealot's armor type to "armored," which isn't an excellent solution.
b- Increase the siege tank's damage to light units to 45: still 2 shots to kill a zergling or marine at current stats, but takes down zealots in 4 shots, 3 if there's enough splash... this is still not great, but it would help.
c- Greatly increase the siege tank's AOE without increasing it's damage.
d- Greatly increase the siege tank's damage to its primary target, perhaps while decreasing splash damage. This is a lot less interesting than other options though since siege tanks are interesting because of the splash.
e- some combination.
Spawn Broodlings
This underused spell was awesome, I used to use it against tanks in our little LANS when broodwar was still somewhat new. I mention it because I suggested stronger siege tanks, and this is a neat spell that can potentially add interesting compensation to the zerg player. You could even give it to Queens again, or any unit really, encouraging their appearance in your armies (provided you've managed the creep spread to get them anywhere fast).
Vikings
I don't know if I'm alone here or not, but I find that the viking is a very boring unit. It can transform, but it's transformation mode isn't useful unless the enemy's army consists only of workers- even then, in SC2 I tested it once, and workers beat the vikings for cost. Don't know if it's the same situation here actually.
If the viking had an anti-building attack for when it landed then it would have a lot more potential as a raiding unit. More interesting firstly, and also more useful. Even making them move faster would make them a little more interesting, also helping with the raiding angle.
In a word, I just think it would be better if it were more interesting in some way.
Plague
What if plague was contagious? Say, unit gets infected and emits "pulses" every 5-10 seconds which infect nearby units. It could spread, and add interesting choices when you have an infected bio ball: do you reunite it with the rest of your troops, or keep it separate for a while? To prevent neverending plague, a unit could be immune to plague for 30 seconds after it wears off maybe... It should be possible to do it with the editor, but might be buggy, I don't know the editor well.
It would add positional elements to the game as well.
Terrain
It pains me to have not seen this in a mod yet, let alone in HOTS, but different terrain types would add a lot to starcraft. For example, "mud" could reduce movement speed, or toxic water/acid could actually do dps to units passing through them. There could be "cover" terrain- lots of debris or foilage that gives an armor bonus to units within it. You could have fog which drastically reduces field of view within it for units, or added a miss chance if you're within it because the units can't see. It would be easy to overdo it, but it would spice up maps if a few maps had one or two of these features.
You could also have parts of the map influence these terrain types: for example, by trashing a dam you could make a little zone of acid water, but by repairing the dam with workers you could remove it. It would be best if these effects were subtle rather than game-changing.
Terrain is interesting, by carefully adding terrain features the game could be easily enriched. Again, it would be best if the effects were subtle, rather than game-changing. Adds many strategic and tactical considerations
Frenzy
If frenzy is so strong (haven't seen it a lot yet personally), what if casting the spell caused the caster to explode/die? A small tweak, might not do much, but would add a gambling aspect and cost to the use of the spell.
|
@Frenzy
Good points regarding the lack of depth in the spell. It is not a spell I am super proud of, but I keep it in the game since it is a nice counterpart to Dark Swarm. The Swarm Guardian now has two spells to protect/boost the Zerg army, but in different ways. If frenzied Zerg units recieve more damage, the spell might be more interesting. I will keep an eye on this spell and probably adjust it in the next patch.
Better name suggestion anyone? Frenzy sounds very Warcraft 3..
@Protoss spells
Even though Feedback and Storm in SC2 is on the same unit, there might be some problems with it in the Starbow context. There is a risk that HT is the only caster P needs. It can destroy enemy units and it can protect itself vs enemy casters.
I prefer to distribute the power over many units. Every unit serves a purpose and by combining those units, depth in the game is created.
We have a new caster, the Nullifier, which holds some design space. I am looking at different ways to rearrange the spells. Nullifier starts with Feedback? Can upgrade Void Shell and Stasis Field?
HT starts with Hallucination? Can upgrade into Storm?
There are many possibilities.
I am a bit skeptic about force fields, especially on the HT. A unit that can both trap units AND deal AoE damage can easily be broken.
@iSoak
Thank you for your feedback.
I am not happy with the current mines for various reasons. I plan to change the way they work in the next patch.
The terrain part sounds interestion but too advanced and radical to implement.
Vikings and Plague have room for more design space. Everything that makes units/spells more interesting/fun/deeper etc is my friend.
Sorry for short answear. My lunch break is almost over. Back to work ^^
|
A couple of thoughts regarding nullifier and stalker/dragoon when it comes to DESIGN (and a little balance....)
Nullifier: I really like the idea of a spellcaster to deal with a sieged terran position and not a hard-counter unit (like the immortal). Both nullifier and ht's can help break a siege terran position now (stasis and storm). I also like that the nullifier's spell is something you can prepare to cast at your own timing instead of a reaction of your opponent (like defensive force fields works in sc2). This is more thoughts that critisism as I truly enjoy the addition of the nullifier. How many units should be statsied and how large the radio of the ..... forgetting its name .... should be can be changed later if needed.
Dragoon vs stalkers: So here's the thought. If a terran and a protoss are equally good and on equal bases (let's say 2 each) and terran moves out with a mech army. I feel that a protoss army of just zealtos and stalkers should be able to beat vultures/tanks, if the tanks are unsieged. (This depents on flankings and mines and lots of things, but this is just a general situation). If blink becomes so strong that the stalker must have low hp/dps such that a terran can a-moev a protoss then I feel there is a problem with the game and maybe it is time for a re-apperance of the dragoon as a stronger stalker without blink, and perhaps longer range. This, of course might be bad for pvz for dealing with mutas, but recent discussions might changes the mutas anyway, and archons already deal with mutas wonderfully.
Personally I feel the stalker is a bit weak (might be because I play toss... ) and would love to try a period with the dragoon back to see what it would be like. My 2 cents, peace out!
|
On November 29 2012 20:11 Kabel wrote:
@Frenzy
Better name suggestion anyone? Frenzy sounds very Warcraft 3..
I believe that frenzy is a pretty good name for the spell the only problem is that it's not 'zergy' enough. I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but zerg spells always seem to have the same template. There is always one word that describes (loosely) what the spell does, followed by something with the intention to make the spell sound more zergy.
Common examples are: 'dark' swarm, 'spawn' larva, 'fungal' growth, 'neural' parasite, 'spawn' broodlings etc.
Obviously this isn't true for ALL spells (consume, transfuse for example) but it is for the majority of zerg's combat spells.
Therefore I'm thinking of naming it something like 'frenzying' fungus (I also like 'frenzying growth', or 'frenzied' parasite, but these are both stolen names from other spells).
The reason I like the above name is that it both fits in with the zerg naming convention, and it would lead to some cool opportunities in the animation department. I could imagine when you cast the spell on your units that said units grow fungus from their bodies for the duration of the spell, the implications being that said fungus is responsible for the units going into a frenzy.
Seems neat to me at least =).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
