|
What the hell, dude? I didn't say "you are full of shit", I said "you are in a rough spot when trying to make the judgment call" with a 50% miss-chance. Jesus christ, before you're putting those words into my mouth, please make sure to carefully read that stuff. If you can chill, chill and stop stirring up trouble over nothing.
But I suppose I'm just a kid...
Oh and: I'm not arguing that you can't predict it per se, but rather that it is a very volatile situation to be in (as the one fighting quite literally uphill) that - (apparently) some others also feel - has it's flaws. It's certainly better than SC2's high-ground usage but it ain't perfect, so why not explore or at least theorycraft about more possibilities and - if they turn out to suck more - go back to (thinking) about how to improve the old one? o_O
Dear god...
|
The high ground miss chance is one of those things I would have been opposed to on paper from a pure theorycrafting perspective, but that has definitely changed my mind experiencing it in-game.
I'm very much a proponent of keeping the miss chance in. I also wouldn't reduce it too drastically either.
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What is on my Starbow mind<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The balance is decent. Not perfect, but ok enough to not make me do any changes right now. (I know NA has an old patch) There are other things that worry me about the gameplay. Especially this:
+ Show Spoiler +
Games generally become very long.
30-50 minute games are common. (As we for example saw in the two casts by Decembers.)
There can be a combination of factors that determines this:
- maps
- defenders advantage too strong
- economy too slow
I will cover each of these topics and at the end of my post suggest some potential adjustments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Maps<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The size of maps can determine a lot. (Obviously) Laaarge maps usually creates longer games. Smaller maps are quicker. On the other hand, large maps allows players to reach the high parts of their tech tree and build "empires" with many bases across the map. Small maps often ends in earlier parts of the game, with low tier units. Not much room to expand.
Right now, Hard Grid is an example of a map that always takes long time to play. Both players can safely expand away from the enemy player. Three to four bases are easy to secure and very far away from the opponent. Compare it to Destination, where each base a player takes lead them closer to the enemy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Defenders advantage<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This is a tricky one. If there is no defenders advantage, being aggressive is as good as defending. It will lead to more aggressive play. But if there is no defenders advantage, players will not be able to claim territory easily nor move out to expand. The trick is to find a good balance - players shall be able to defend areas with quite small armies vs larger armies. (If they are clever) But it must not be impossible to attack.
My intention is to make this happen: 1 base vs 1 base will generally favor the defender. This means that each player seeks to get an economic advantage. With that advantage will they be able to get enough units to attack. They want 2v1 to be true. There are two ways of doing so: Either expand or deny the enemy base. The same scenario happens if there is 2base vs 2base. Or 3base vs 3base. Deny, harass and expand.
Right now we often reach points where two players can not attack each other, especially during the midgame. Mostly in TvP. Terran can not push out cause they need to have an huge enough army, otherwise they will be overrun easily. Protoss can not attack since Terran has spider mines + tanks everywhere. (This can happen in other match ups too.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Economy<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Starcraft is a game of acceleration. Players start at 0. Not many fast paced games have this ingredient. (Many start at the "action") The rate of the acceleration determines the length of the different stages of the game - early game, mid game, late game and super late game. Bla bla. I will get to the point.
I do like the fact that many bases are needed for a strong economy. Its common to see +4 bases for each players around 17-25 minutes. Attacks, harassment, multiple battles often happens. So far so good.
The early game scare people away. Newcomers sometimes tell me that the early game is forever. "OMG where is the money?!?" "ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz............" "Loooooool my grandma is faster than this xD xD "
I can understand that critiscm. Starcraft is a game where observers Alt-Tab into windows for the first minutes since "nothing happens." Or rather, there is no potential of something happening. (Yes, cheeses etc can happen, but with the low starting income, it takes longer time now than in SC2) A good game should catch the attention immediately and never let the observer out of the grip >.< ... (I know I am asking for much here ^^ )
Here is the dilemma: If I increase the income generated per worker, I reduce the number of bases needed for a strong economy.
What is a strong economy?
Strong economy = the time it takes for a player to reach 200 supply. Thats it.
Even if you mine only 1 mineral per minute from the main base, you will finally reach 200/200. But if you have two of those bases, you do it twice as fast! Heck, in a scenario like this, players would even want to have 50 bases at the same time! Each base would be an advantage over the enemy.
Compare it to if a base gives 10.000 minerals per minute. It will get fast to reach 200/200 and get the game started. BUT IT ALSO LIMIT THE NEED FOR MORE BASES! Why have 2 bases when you can do fine with just 1 base? The second base will only give you a nice bank.. which is nice. But having 3-6 bases would mean nothing.
The key is just to reach 200/200 faster than your opponent.
Right now in Starbow, there is almost always room for more bases. There is always room to increase the rate at which you collect minerals. Players are encouraged to grab expansions. This also means that it lies in their interest to deny enemy bases!
If Starcraft is a boxing fight, SC2 would be a game where both boxers stand in each corner and load their fist with dynamite. BANG! They attack for one knock out. Game over.
I aim to make players trade blows, upper cuts, kick each other in the genitals, and when one boxer smells victory, he releases the knock out.
^^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What can be done?!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I will shift a few of the maps in the map pool. Probably replace Hard Grid with Destination and a few suprises.
Maybe reduce miss chance to 40% ? (Would have affect on some maps with many ramps.)
Make the offensive spells better - Dark Swarm stronger, Nerve jammer affect buildings etc..
Small adjustments to strengthen the aggressive tools for the races.. (Stronger harassment units etc)
Or just let it be to see if it evolves in the meta game..
Increase starting workers from 6 to 8. (This would make saturation time of the main base very fast. Must that be a bad thing?.. Hmm..)
Give players starting resources.. (I know this is ugly.. 400 starting minerals.. Oh mama..)
Increase economy from 7 per trip to 8 per trip. (12,5% speed in income rate.. I had it like this for a month.. The problem was, in my opinion, that 3 bases gave "enough" income to reach 200/200. A forth and fifth base just gave resources to the bank.)
O_o
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the thing - many of you who regularly visit this thread, and play Starbow, sure want the game to be enjoyable and good. (Both for players and observers.) That is what it is all about. The game must be a blast!
So here I merely discuss what possible adjustments would make the game funnier, better and more enjoyable.
Ps. I am not talking about doing something crazy to change everything. Maybe there is room for some kind of improvement at an overall level. Feel free to discuss it!
|
I'm not sure what the huge problem is with the current set up is.
Does the game reward turtling up to 200/200?
As far as I can tell this is a huge no.
Even Zerg while building up his army can always find some way to get an advantage with his mobile units.
So when players are playing safe, what does this tell us?
I can see two major answers.
1: It isn't advantageous to attack due to lack of information, enemies abundance of information, defenders advantage.
2: The player is simply playing safe because he is unsure of how to play aggressive in the current meta game.
From what I can tell, the issue seems more to be answer number 2.
The vast majority of the time it is impossible to cover all of the expansion and angles of attack your opponent could make. No matter how you split your army, there will be a tactical way to engage your opponent. Ex: he splits up his army to deal with harassment, you regroup and use one big attack on the split up forces.
Some things that could hinder this is the over abundance of information (xel naga towers), or bases that are too close to each other.
Regarding the pace of the action.
Both players should always want map control and to be battling for it. Even with a slow ish economy you will still have units to fight for this map control. Defenders advantage will enable you to have more bases over a larger map to enable more chance for army positioning to matter (as opposed to SC2 3 base keeping the army together syndrome). Why do we see players play super safe and turtle? Perhaps it is the players and a very much so undefined meta game. Imagine playing BW without knowing how to bio push TvZ.
One theory of mine is the lack of micro ability compared to BW. Micro'ed units in BW are so much more incredibly effective than they are unmicro'ed that there is always a chance for you to deal some sort of blow against your opponent, from 1 base to a mined out map. Think back to those micro battles at the start of every game. How many times have you seen one or two tanks fighting a cut hroat micro war vs dragoons? Of course this is a result of a lot of different factors and would require a huge change. Just some thought food.
|
The game feels a lot more dynamics than WoL, so there's definitely a lot of good stuff going on here.
For starters, I never understood why you reduced the minerals harvested from 8 to 7 :O I think 8 was better and as far as I recall, it didn't lead to 200/200 turtle 
Starting ressources... err, no, I don't think that's needed or wanted ^^
I'd definitely say reduce the miss-chance by some margin. Maybe 33%? On some maps it's really next to impossible to avoid high-ground (read: Blue Storm and to some degree Shortest Straw :D)
And you might say that Hard Grid favors turtly style of play by expanding away but keep in mind that there's always several paths to those expansions unlike Destination. So while you can expand away from your opponent, you have to cover more space at the same time. Overall though, I think having one big map like Hard Grid in there is good, spices the map pool up a bit.
At the same time, I'd love to see more spawns enabled on at least Andromeda cause it's soooooo huge.
Also: I don't think players are playing safe according to the meta because that would imply that there is a set meta yet. I don't think we have one. I just think that many people come here thinking in WoL style and just play somewhat safe because cheese/aggression is frowned upon by the nr 20 foreigner mentality :s
Edit: Some games from tonight:
PvT: Bio without anything to spice it up? http://drop.sc/302228 Plus a lot of high ground usage.
PvZ: Hydras are strong, yo! http://drop.sc/302227 Plus also: Mutas!
PvZ: But are they too strong? I dunno http://drop.sc/302229 Plus also: More mutas :D
|
I'm not sure damage reduction will work. It skews upgrades.
Damage reduction WILL work, if and ONLY if, the armor gets subtracted from the damage before the 50% or whatever percent reduction in damage.
Lets take a marine for example.
6 damage, minus 1 armor=5 damage. Over the course of 100 attacks this should average to 250 damage.
6 damage minus 1 armor first=5 damage. Then we apply 50 percent reduction: 5/2=2.5. Over 100 attacks, yet again, 250 damage.
What happens if we apply damage reduction first?
6/2=3. Minus the armor=3-1=2. Over a hundred attacks? Only 200 damage.
Why does this matter?
Because 1 point of armor skews the amount of attacks required to kill a unit by an incredible amount when used on the high ground. It also favors burst damage as opposed to faster attacks like that of a marine. You'd be nerfing the marines ability to attack up, but not the stalker as much. Why is this? The armor gets applied to every attack instead of only 50% of the time.
I'd be perfectly happy with a damage reduction, as long as armor is applied first. Unless I'm mistaken, using triggers this might not be possible.
|
I personally don't want a set damage reduction percent.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I like having a "little" bit of calculated luck involved in my play. One of the most enjoyable moments for me in the early game is being able to poke away with my stalkers at an opponent who thinks they can creep up the ramp I'm holding. Then a siege tank pops out and brings my stalker down to critical hp. 1 more shot and he's dead.
Tank takes the shot.
AND HE LIVES!!
 
I think the %chance adds a level of excitement and anticipation that a flat damage reduction wold not provide.
It is similar to how gambling gives such a tense anticipation of hoping against the odds that you make that triple 7, or that 1 roulette slot, or getting the slightly better hand. Etc.
If the advantage really is too strong, I think reducing it to 30-40% should be more than enough.
|
Starbow Replay
JohnnyZerg (Z) vs saftisch (P)
http://drop.sc/302243
winner: + Show Spoiler +JohnnyZerg. I use corruptor for kill hts and archons
JohnnyZerg (Z) vs Azelija (P)
http://drop.sc/302244
Winner: + Show Spoiler +Azelija. Hts were far too many, and corruptor very few. I was deceived an I fell into the trap, under ramp with miss 50%. In that situation I would have to broodlords for support hydra
@Games generally become very long.
what is the problem? People can get bored During the game? Not think is nice watching two balls 200/200 clash. Consider that build older and timings if they know little or nothing. I think that you should not change anything, and act only on the maps.
|
I don't think we can judge the pace of the game until we see the metagame develop a bit more. At this point there are just so many unexplored build orders and strategies to really be able to tell.
Sidenote: I don't like the idea of Nerve Jammer affecting buildings. As buildings are immobile, there are other ways to siege an area that is heavily defended by Spines/Cannons/Bunkers.
|
Wow, Fuchsteufwild. You are one frustrated person.
Your point is that it doesn't matter in big skirmishes. My point is that matters too much in small ones. Also, as long as you micro your forces big engagements turn into lots of smaller ones. Target fireing lurkers, sniping reavers etc. If you push up the hill with 30 stimmed rines vs 10 stalkers then of course that won't matter what "reduction " we will use. But if opponent is dropping reaver behind your forces or your rines got fungaled and banes are rolling in and you count on your siege tanks then you can't predict anything.
I'm not saying game with random highground advantage can't exist. I'm just saying I don't think players should have to rely on luck. And you can't ALWAYS be on top...
|
I also do not see the big problem, but small changes can be good. Bringing back desti is a good idea. Perhaps rocks on one of the two bridges to make it easier for toss to FFE. I would like to see the range for Dark swarm cast changed. I often loose the swarm guardian before I can cast the dark swarm. And perhaps the radius of the whole swarm. I often analyse my own games later on and regret that I did not just stick with infestors. They seem stronger than swarm guardians atm. (Ofc both work nicly together...).
About the pace of the game: Let's not be afraid of long games. Let's be afraid of long games where both turtle up to get 200/200 before they attack. (ZvP SC2 anyone?) Not sure if I see the same in PvT. We have blink, banshees, vulture harass, drop (+ firebats that johnnyzerg showed how awesome it can be), dt's and other ways of hurting the oppondent in the early-mid-game without moving your whole army out. It needs to be worth the risk.
I think this game are seeing and will see different stages. The era if experimenting is dawning and the new era of sticking to tried and true strategies are upon us. It will be more boring but it will be neccecary for this games development. Let us figure this game out and soon enough, someone will rattle the established builds with new ones and the meta will always slowly change.I don't mind minor changes changes though. +1 for maps changing (not all) -1 for 400 starting minerals. -1 for 8 minerals per trip. Not sure about 8 starting workers, might make cheese even harder.
If people complain that this game is too slow and boring then .... well .... it's not. Those are the players that 6-pools every game in SC2.... Maybe the promo gave off the wrong impression
|
On February 05 2013 16:00 Xiphias wrote:I also do not see the big problem, but small changes can be good. Bringing back desti is a good idea. Perhaps rocks on one of the two bridges to make it easier for toss to FFE. I would like to see the range for Dark swarm cast changed. I often loose the swarm guardian before I can cast the dark swarm. And perhaps the radius of the whole swarm. I often analyse my own games later on and regret that I did not just stick with infestors. They seem stronger than swarm guardians atm. (Ofc both work nicly together...). About the pace of the game: Let's not be afraid of long games. Let's be afraid of long games where both turtle up to get 200/200 before they attack. (ZvP SC2 anyone?) Not sure if I see the same in PvT. We have blink, banshees, vulture harass, drop (+ firebats that johnnyzerg showed how awesome it can be), dt's and other ways of hurting the oppondent in the early-mid-game without moving your whole army out. It needs to be worth the risk. I think this game are seeing and will see different stages. The era if experimenting is dawning and the new era of sticking to tried and true strategies are upon us. It will be more boring but it will be neccecary for this games development. Let us figure this game out and soon enough, someone will rattle the established builds with new ones and the meta will always slowly change.I don't mind minor changes changes though. +1 for maps changing (not all) -1 for 400 starting minerals. -1 for 8 minerals per trip. Not sure about 8 starting workers, might make cheese even harder. If people complain that this game is too slow and boring then .... well .... it's not. Those are the players that 6-pools every game in SC2.... Maybe the promo gave off the wrong impression
I had rocks on one of the bridges on NA's destination. SC2 bridges are certaintly not BW bridges.
Agreed about letting the meta develop for now.
+1 to mineral income is a HUGE change for how the game actually plays out.
|
How about this?
The starting base now get 10 mineral patches instead of 9.
Players start with 8 workers instead of 6.
Maybe the supply per nexus/Command center/Hatchery must go up with 1.
This means that the total income from 1 base play will be a little bit higher.
The saturation time from 6 workers to 18 workers will be the same as 8 workers to 20 workers.
Most importantly, the game will "start" faster.
More happiness for everyone?
|
I almost think you could get away with just bumping the starting worker count back up to 7 and call it a day.
Having to mess with the amount of supply Hatcheries generate and all that is a little off-putting because it will completely change opening build-orders.
Seven starting workers, seven minerals per trip. Feels nice. That's shaving off a good 20ish seconds of game time at start-up.
|
On February 05 2013 17:17 decemberscalm wrote:
I had rocks on one of the bridges on NA's destination. SC2 bridges are certaintly not BW bridges.
How did it work out?
On February 05 2013 18:57 SmileZerg wrote:
I almost think you could get away with just bumping the starting worker count back up to 7 and call it a day.
Having to mess with the amount of supply Hatcheries generate and all that is a little off-putting because it will completely change opening build-orders.
Seven starting workers, seven minerals per trip. Feels nice. That's shaving off a good 20ish seconds of game time at start-up.
Yes! Let's try this before any major changes. Small steps.
|
On February 05 2013 08:04 Kabel wrote: There are other things that worry me about the gameplay. Especially this: + Show Spoiler +
Games generally become very long.
30-50 minute games are common. (As we for example saw in the two casts by Decembers.)
That's the best thing. It's not a problem, it's a proof that game has balance and that it's possible to turn a game around.
Besides not all games are very long,theres still alot of shorter ones. It wouldn't be good if alot of games ended up in cheese or some early-mid game timing push like in sc2 these days.
|
On February 05 2013 17:43 Kabel wrote:
Players start with 8 workers instead of 6.
If you do this you're dangerously playing with timings. Maybe zerg could get mutas super early,and maybe a hundred other things...
|
7 starting workers will together collect 49 minerals at the first trip. (7x7) I had it like that when the universe was young. It looked "annoying" and "unprofessional." Maybe I can give it a second shot?
Dont get me wrong, I am quite happy with most of the stuff in Starbow. Some things are decent. If there is room for improvement, lets go for it. I personally would not see any negative impact of having a faster "start up." If this was a MOD built in Brood War, I think players would call it a bad idea to go from 4 to 6 workers. The goal is simply to enable a better gaming experience and I think a faster start helps with that.
Maybe there are other ways to speed up the start a little bit, without any negative impacts on other parts of the economy?
If you do this you're dangerously playing with timings. Maybe zerg could get mutas super early,and maybe a hundred other things...
Well, the timings will be similar for all races since the number of workers is equal. If I mess with Build Time of buildings/units, then balance will heavily change. But the starting workers is still in proportions.
Example: Imagine if each race starts with 1 worker. Mutas would probably be in play around 15 minutes into the game. Since the economy is equal for the races, Protoss would probably have cannons up in time. (Since the ratio remains the same) Same scenario would occur even if players starts with 6 workers, except that mutas would be in play maybe around 9 minutes. Protoss would have cannons up at that time.. and so on,,
Correct me if I am wrong on this.
|
i don't know whats right or wrong. but sc2 has started with notion of 'speeding up' the economy with introducing chrono boost,mule,inject larva supposedly with the intention of making the game more dynamic yet the end result was exactly the opposite because:
1.if you speed things up players end up having the blob mentality,smaller pushes become less relevant beacuse why risk something with a smaller push when you can macro fast and a few minutes later have a huge army
2.smaller pushes become easier to fend off,beacuse fast economy also enables you to have fast early game defences in the form of cannons/bunkers/turrets and whatnot,so why not just turtle up early on,focus on macro and then hit the opponent later on with a big army,if he tries anything early on and fails he's at a diatvantage,it's rock beats scissors
3.fast economy makes small temporary advantages very powerful, if you dont expand right after your opponent then he'll mule/chrono/larva like crazy and you wont be able to catch up
these are the reasons why when youre wathcing a 20-30min sc2 game you're just wachning a macro race with little action,players dont want to risk anything because if they fail theres no way of getting back,rahter just rely on macro power and turtle/blob as much as you can. slower economy makes small things important so there are alot of zealot/muta/mm/hydra/ling etc. timings which make the game interesting and able to turn around
ps
maybe i exaggerated a bit.i know the changes youre proposing are not as drastic as this,but its a step in that direction.i'm not a fan of fast economy concept and you should be careful about that
|
On February 05 2013 20:48 Lynx801 wrote:
i don't know whats right or wrong. but sc2 has started with notion of 'speeding up' the economy with introducing chrono boost,mule,inject larva supposedly with the intention of making the game more dynamic yet the end result was exactly the opposite because:
1.if you speed things up players end up having the blob mentality,smaller pushes become less relevant beacuse why risk something with a smaller push when you can macro fast and a few minutes later have a huge army
2.smaller pushes become easier to fend off,beacuse fast economy also enables you to have fast early game defences in the form of cannons/bunkers/turrets and whatnot,so why not just turtle up early on,focus on macro and then hit the opponent later on with a big army,if he tries anything early on and fails he's at a diatvantage,it's rock beats scissors
3.fast economy makes small temporary advantages very powerful, if you dont expand right after your opponent then he'll mule/chrono/larva like crazy and you wont be able to catch up
these are the reasons why when youre wathcing a 20-30min sc2 game you're just wachning a macro race with little action,players dont want to risk anything because if they fail theres no way of getting back,rahter just rely on macro power and turtle/blob as much as you can. slower economy makes small things important so there are alot of zealot/muta/mm/hydra/ling etc. timings which make the game interesting and able to turn around
ps
maybe i exaggerated a bit.i know the changes youre proposing are not as drastic as this,but its a step in that direction.i'm not a fan of fast economy concept and you should be careful about that
+1
@7/8worker start
time ago when I played the first time in starbow, see 7 workers was strange. I think you should keep 6 workers start, also because it is ugly (7-8 worker start).
@10 minerals in main: you could try. I do not think that increasing the income may decrease the length of matches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
