|
@Hider
When HoTS is out I aim to redesign/replace some of the content in the game, depending on the possibilities HoTS offer. More about it in my previous post OR further down in this post. PF is one of those things that will be changed since it does not help to promote the gameplay I aim for! Instead I have a new kind of "defence system" for Terran that will likely replace the PF...
@SkaPunk
Well, as far as I know, the concept of the Dota-maps in WC3 was actually unique. Somethng completely new. Starbow is just an approach of an already existing concept - Starcraft... It's not anything revolutionary. It started as my attempt to make SC2 in a way I would find enjoyable. Since it got a decent player base I have continued, so I have atleast made something right ^^ But I find this unlikely to be a stand-alone game in any way.
I bump my own post:
I pre-booked HoTS today, since I decided to continue the work on Starbow. I have been a bit doubtful about it, but I do not want to drop this project completely. I can go on for a while atleast ^^
I will later this week write a post where I describe some of the fundamental areas that I find problematic with Starbow. When I upload the next patch, after HoTS has been released, I will aim to improve some of those areas. That might mean that some units, spells, abilities etc becomes a bit modified and maybe even replaced.
Anyway, I encourage you all to discuss, evaluate and think about how the game can become better.
What works?
What is problematic?
What is not fun?
What feels empty?
And so on..
Detail balance is of course important. But do not focus too much on it since some things, like unit relationships, might change at a larger scale. The last patch by Blizzard screwed up some things with the Starbow-file, due to changes in the editor. I get many bug-reports via PM and here in the thread. I will aim to fix those aswell with the next patch.
|
Ok since I previously talked about what doesn't work/could use improvements, I think I will use this post to discuss what I think works very well (compared to WOL/HOTS);
1) Calldown scvs being replaced by mules - Early on I feel like there is so many small varations I can with my opening. In WOL there was no real decision involved with how you spent your energy or when you researched OC. In starbow I feel like this is almost a science.
2) The economy - Being forced to split up your army just creates a lot more multitasking in the late game. I think I have used hours just thinking about the various matchups and maps and how I should position my self step by step. In WOL you really didn't have to do that as most positional decisions were kinda trivial. Again I feel like there is alot more "scicence" to starbow.
3) Protoss - Protoss feels like such an micro/intensive and multitask based race. Removing Immortals and void rays (or tempest) was definitely the correct decision. Though I wouldn't mind seing a replacement for the nulliefier.
4) Vultures replacing hellions. Hellions were one of the better sc2 units, but vultures are just freaking awesome. 
5) Less reliance of turrets as a defensive terran - In WOL you can always spent your excessive minerals (from mules) on massing turrets which creates very boring games as the opponent can't drop/harass you. In Starbow you don't have those excessive minerals which means it is easier for the oponent to harass you.
6) More control groups are neccesary. As terran I found it neccesary to have 5 control groups in the late game. in WOL I never had more than 3 control groups. This is great as it increases the skill cap.
7) Infestors - Plague + fungal in starbow is just much much better than sc2 fungal as it doesn't kill you immediately for making a splitsecond mistake.
8) TvT - I think this is an awesome matchup. Previosuly I talked about how the vulture wasn't really efficient for anything but timings attacks in TvP. In TvT, however, it works perfectly as vulture based openings actually are superior to tank openings which create somewhat fast paced games early on. In the midgame I believe heavy drop play will dominate the metagame and players will constantly have to fight for new positions, and have to split up their armies to defend multiple locations at once. But unless you have a very high tank count at a specific location (which you seldomly have as your forced to split your army and chances are that you have been trading armies throughout the whole game), vultures are pretty good at breaking small tank lines as the mines are really efficient vs clumped up tanks. Also you can drop on tank lines unlike in WOL as the viking isn't that usefull along with mech.
Btw could you talk a little further about that defensive system? Sounds interesting.
|
I have for the past weeks, even before the tournament, thought and sketched on potential improvements for the game. I have kept much of in my note book, and not made reality of it, since I wanted the game to stabilize a bit. Which it has. But I do think many things can be improved. HoTS is a good moment for it and I have picked up my work again.
I will in the coming days publish some posts with the following structure:
1. Aspects of the game that I find problematic and want to improve or fix.
2. I will describe what I will adjust with the game to fix or "solve" the problems.
In this way you all can think, question, critize and bring your ideas on the matter. I aim to get my first post up tomorrow.
@Terran defensive system
Let me start with a small thing. This is my recipe for a good ability. It must have both a theorethical and practical layer in it, in other words, it shall offer a decision for the player AND he/she shall be able to execute the ability well or poorly.. (Depending on the skill)
Theorethical layers of an ability:
- WHEN do I wanna use it?
- WHERE do I wanna use it?
Practical layers of an ability:
- Be able to see where the spell can be used for maximized efficiency. (Finding the right spot on the battlefield..)
- The speed at which a player operates with the mouse/keyboard.
- A skilled player must simply be able to make his abilities more effective via his good.. skills.. : p
Example of an ability that is bad BOTH in decision and execution:
+ Show Spoiler +
The ability costs 0 energy. Click on it and all enemy units and structures on the map die.
It is a silly spell. But the point is that it does not matter WHEN or WHERE a player use it, it is always equally good everywhere. It doesn´t matter HOW WELL a player uses the spell, it can not fail.
Compare it to Matrix. WHEN do you wanna use it? On what unit? How fast can you spam Matrix on many units?
There are of course other factors that contributes to make an ability interesting. OK. Now I have said that. With this in mind, lets get to my point about the Terran defence system.
I CONSIDER to remove the PF and instead add a new ability to the Orbital Command. It will have these spells:
- Calldown SCV
- Scan
- Calldown Turret
The latter ability drops a temporary "Auto-turret" on top of a supply depot that can attack maybe air and ground.
In this way, supply depots become even more important in the Terran lay out of the base. Just clumping them up in the back of a base is not always the best thing. Each supply depot CAN gain a local effect and Terran will benefit from spreading them across the bases. On the other hand, this will also make them more vulnerable of being sniped by mutas, drops etc...
Ofc the detail balance of the "Auto-turret" is not complete. It lasts X seconds? Or maybe its permanent? It can attack air? Damage? It costs resources to calldown?
Thoughts, ideas, flaws about this concept?
|
I have a interesting idea for a new defensive system:
change effect of fortified bunker upgrade:
-Not add 2 cargo space for infantry
-Add a turret on bunker with marauder attack (10 vs light,15 damage, 20 vs armored) with concursive shell. This turret has 7 range of attack and can attack air units (slow effect might be interesting vs air units).
-Bunker lose "Salvage" ability.
This upgrade maintains + 200 hp and +1 range attack and -15 bt.
Edit: this new bunked can be use in early for add a new option for terran to counter stalkers push.
This bunker can be use with or no marines, and can make synergy with missile turret.
|
On March 07 2013 06:11 Kabel wrote:
Your post was long...
I like it. But there is one thing you (almost typed "we") have to be careful with and that is cheese potential. Go bunker rush, make orbital, build supply depot in opponents base and bam!, a canon. This was the problem in early HOTS when they experimented of giving pylons a defense upgrade from the nexus. They wisely moved it to the nexus itself, but not the mama-core casts it.
Point is. This sounds good and could work, but make sure it does not become an imba chese. I don't mind it becoming a cheese as long as it's not broken.
Also, next tournament. Not too many people clicked on the polls, but it seems April is the month to go. Might interfere with exams (MUAHAHAH). I don't really mind only eight players anyway... But if this next "heart of the Starbow" patch comes out right before, it might be cool to kick it off with a tournament (all playing in the dark with new abilities ).
|
Kabel, in the Theorycrafting community we call those desicion making
Positional Decision Making (Where you want to cast an ability)
Temporal Decision Making (When you want to cast an ability)
There is also Energy Tension which is the competition that an ability has for energy with other abilities on that unit. It is dependent on restrictions (Example: having more than one queen destroys the Energy Tension of Spawn Larva)
|
Yes that is indeed better words to describe it.
|
Kabel no calldown supply depot? I think it is quite an interesting decision between when to call down supply depots and when to call down scv's.
I think you previously stated that your intention behind the planetary was to give terrans a chance to come back and defend the expansion if it was under attack by the oppoent This turret call down doesn't really help with that (?)
Due to the improved AI I belive it is easier for the opponent than in BW to abuse immobility which means that terrans could use some "caught out of position-help" though it just shouldn't be the way the current planetary works.
Secondly, what is the purpose of this call down turret. I don't see any serious advantages of it in terms of the gameplay it creates. Rather I think it nerfs harassbased play in main/natural (like mutalisks, warp prism harass, recalls, overlord drops, nydus etc.). All of these playstyles are quite entertaining I believe and I don't think they all need an indirect nerf.
|
Well, all forms of defences will nerf harassment play and attacks. Once a player invests in enough defence the opponent will not be able to harass a certain base or area, no matter if it is bunkers, turrets, siege tanks, photon cannons, spine crawlers etc.
The PF and most static defences requires one investment in resources. From that point, they operate by themselfes and requires little attention/APM from the defender, compared to the APM needed by the harassing player.
These are the advantages I see with it:
1. Terran need to be more active as the defender with Calldown Turret. Overall, I have aimed to make all static defence require more attention - Chrono boost can be used to increase cannons attack, Rift requires attention just to be executed, Transfusion is more viable due to the cheaper casting cost and Nurturing Swarm can help to bring up defences quicker.
2. Even if Chrono boost, Calldown Turret, Rift, Nurturing Swarm, Transfusion or even repair from SCVS is used for defence, the attacker harasses indirectly. Each of these abilities require some kind of sacrifice, either in resoureces or in energy. A Chrono boost on a cannon is one less chrono boost on your production.. one Calldowned turret is one less scan or SCV..
3. It enables more situations for skilled-base play. The attacker can "lure" the defender to waste Calldown Turrets at bad moments, attack, back off, attack again.. the defender need to position his supply depots at good locations.. the defender need to manage the energy in the Orbital command.. If too much is wasted on scans there is not much left to use for potential extra defences.. and so on
It is also a matter of balance. The "Auto-turret" shall not be some kind of super defence. Tanks, spider mines, bunkers, turrets etc will be much stronger. The auto-turret will serve as a way to buy time so the real defences can arrive.. similar as I intended with the PF.. T can drop some Auto-Turrets.. The enemy can choose to continue to attack or back away..
|
On March 07 2013 07:34 Hider wrote:
Kabel no calldown supply depot? I think it is quite an interesting decision between when to call down supply depots and when to call down scv's.
I think you previously stated that your intention behind the planetary was to give terrans a chance to come back and defend the expansion if it was under attack by the oppoent This turret call down doesn't really help with that (?)
Due to the improved AI I belive it is easier for the opponent than in BW to abuse immobility which means that terrans could use some "caught out of position-help" though it just shouldn't be the way the current planetary works.
Secondly, what is the purpose of this call down turret. I don't see any serious advantages of it in terms of the gameplay it creates. Rather I think it nerfs harassbased play in main/natural (like mutalisks, warp prism harass, recalls, overlord drops, nydus etc.). All of these playstyles are quite entertaining I believe and I don't think they all need an indirect nerf.
I agree with all of this. I don't think the Calldown Turret is the correct answer. I'll be adding more thoughts on the subject later when I have the time.
|
On March 07 2013 07:53 Kabel wrote:
Well, all forms of defences will nerf harassment play and attacks. Once a player invests in enough defence the opponent will not be able to harass a certain base or area.
The PF and most static defences requires one investment in resources. From that point, they operate by themselfes and requires little attention/APM from the defender, compared to the APM needed by the harassing player.
These are the advantages I see with it:
1. Terran need to be more active as the defender with Calldown Turrets. Overall, I have aimed to make all static defence require more attention - Chrono boost can be used to increase cannons attack, Rift requires attention just to be executed, Transfusion is more viable due to the cheaper casting cost and Nurturing Swarm can help to bring up defences quicker.
2. Even if Chrono boost, Calldown Turret, Rift, Nurturing Swarm, Transfusion or even repair from SCVS is used for defence, the attacker harasses indirectly. Each of these abilities require some kind of sacrifice, either in resoureces or in energy. A Chrono boost on a cannon is one less chrono boost on your production.. one Calldowned turret is one less scan or SCV..
3. It enables more situations for skilled-base play. The attacker can "lure" the defender to waste Calldown Turrets at bad moments, attack, back off, attack again.. the defender need to position his supply depots at good locations.. the defender need to manage the energy in the Orbital command.. If too much is wasted on scans there is not much left to use for potential extra defences.. and so on
It is also a matter of balance. The "Auto-turret" shall not be some kind of super defence. Tanks, spider mines, bunkers, turrets etc will be much stronger. The auto-turret will serve as a way to buy time so the real defences can arrive.. similar as I intended with the PF.. T can drop some Auto-Turrets.. The enemy can choose to continue to attack or back away..
1) I still think it will be a very easy ability to use from a mechanically perspective. It's definitely much easier than to select the correct amount of marines + medis from your main army. Then deselect them from your control group. Then you will have to micro them vs mutas to gain the optimal outcome.
There is in my opinion no doubt that watching static defense vs mutalisks isn't that entertaining because the outcome is almost predetermined before the fight starts as the terran player can't micro, and the zerg can only do limited micro in pulling injured mutas back (this is however only doable when you have relatively small numbers - assuming larger numbers, like 20-25 mutaslisk, this isn't realistic).
So instead I think we should do everything we can do, to not give static defenses a too large role. They should support your army in defending harass, but they must never make it too easy to defend harass as it will justt decrease the skill cap and reduce entertainment value.
2) and 3): I agree with this and they are similar in that regard to my suggestion. However my suggestion differs in two ways;
1) It encourages rather than discourages harassbased play (something I believe we can almost never have enough off).
2) It makes large armies weaker against planetaries.
I don't think putting down 2-3 auto turrets is going to help at all against a deathball. It will help against small harassbased play which is bad in my opinion. I hope you agree with me that we should incentivize "small group-attacks" rather than "big group attacks".
2-3 auto turrets will help vs dt's or 5 zealots or something like that, but will be pointless vs a 120 food army. Noone is arguing that a planetary should be able to beat a 120 food army, but it should be able to "win time", which is why it needs a big HP buff when the planetary ability is activated (according to my suggestion).
|
I hope you agree with me that we should incentivize "small group-attacks" rather than "big group attacks".
Indeed. This is actually one of the main issues I have with Starbow that I will make a post about within the next few days. In it I will start to discuss how this type of gameplay can be encouraged in more areas of the game.
I actually missed the idea you had written at the end of the previous page. I bump it here so more can read it. I do think this is a very good idea. But in terms of mechanical perspective, this one feels quite easy to use?
Btw Kabel I know you don't want design changes, but the planetary seriously needs one as it is completely flawed. It does two things;
1) It incentivizes deathballs.
2) It nerfs harass (DT harass for instance is completely useless late game).
It adds nothing to the game in terms of entertainment value, besides making the game more "noob-friendly", as bad multitasking is punished less.
Previously I suggested to make planetary an energy based abillity that OC can use which lasts for X seconds (somewhat similar to the HOTS nexus overcharge or w/e it is called). Danko thought it was a good idea as well, and I believe it will create the following dynamic;
1) Planetary is now much weaker vs harass as you will have to pay the price of 75 energy (or something like that) to defend against 2-3 zealots attacking the scv's. The zealots can then retreat and continue their attack after the duraiton has expired (30 seconds or so).
2) While the planetary aility is activated its HP could be increased by roughly 100%, which will make it much much more durable vs deathball armies which means that terrans now have time to save the expansion if they were caught slightly out of position.
|
Before we decide how to best make new abilities, we must first decide which new units are we bringing in. While this isn't to relevant to the new "unique" units like the tempest, oracle, viper, which all, if properly designed, should have their own niche.
But then there are the units that are destined to overlap, usually because one of the version was meant to replace the other.
Unit groups such as Hellion/Widow mine v.s Vulture, Reaver v.s. Collosus, Swarm Host v.s Lurker or Void Ray/ Phoenix v.s Corsair/Scout.
Do we go for the throwback-but-succesful-and-popular stratagy and keep the BW units, or do we try to make something new and replace these old units?
These are the questions we must ask ourselves first in these early days of the next Starbow....
|
On March 07 2013 13:04 isaachukfan wrote:
Before we decide how to best make new abilities, we must first decide which new units are we bringing in. While this isn't to relevant to the new "unique" units like the tempest, oracle, viper, which all, if properly designed, should have their own niche.
But then there are the units that are destined to overlap, usually because one of the version was meant to replace the other.
Unit groups such as Hellion/Widow mine v.s Vulture, Reaver v.s. Collosus, Swarm Host v.s Lurker or Void Ray/ Phoenix v.s Corsair/Scout.
Do we go for the throwback-but-succesful-and-popular stratagy and keep the BW units, or do we try to make something new and replace these old units?
These are the questions we must ask ourselves first in these early days of the next Starbow....
Or do you add keep the SC2 units, BW units and add new units by creating a Draft/Pick system 
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=400041
|
@Kabel
I like the idea of improving the skill needed to defend. That being said, I also like the Planetary, but not for it's attack.
The cool thing about the Planetary imo, is that it can provide stronger defence, but is something that you made in advance and decided that you wanted to have instead of minerals/scan.
I do however think that the Planetary should be more skill based. That being said, it should have choice in abilities and in placement of those abilities. If these abilities would suddenly stop sieged tanks from far away, it would be way too strong.
The standard attack of the planetary should be removed.
I really like your cannon idea on a supply depot. I also think it should come at a price. When placed, no burrow of the supply depot until the ability has expired. Because the ability would be castable everywhere on the map, the turrets should we rather weak in firepower (say, the strength of an auto turret?).
Another ability could give the Planetary a close range option that is stronger. How this ability would look I am unsure of. Maybe setting a small area on fire to do x (80?) damage in 1 second, or a smaller castable nullifier. Especially the last one could now fit in with the terran arsenal, be cast on the scv's without damaging them, and still let the attacker do damage by running out of the fields. It would only buy time and would force micro on both sides.
The options now would be:
- Castable anywhere on a supply depot, weak option, little damage.
- Castable in close proximity of the Planetary, strong defensive option but no damage
There is no standard attack.
You provide even more choice that has to be planned ahead of time (which is why I like the planetary), making the planetary the defensive option but still creating choice within that defensive option.
You immediately solves the other problem as well. The turrets will not be able to be used in early rushes instead there is a big economical sacrifice.
|
I actually missed the idea you had written at the end of the previous page.
Since you apparently don't read all of my long posts  , I allow myself to quote my self, as I previously wrote a post discussing the "problem-areas" of Starbow.
So after the balance patch I think we now have time to discuss which kind of changes we want to see in the next "design-oriented patch" (whenever that may come out).
Basicially these are the units which I feel should be discussed;
1) Banelings - I think they are useless late game, lets try to change them in a way so that they are usefull vs both toss and terran. Danko you had a suggestion on how to change them, could you please come with specific ingame situations where they could create interesting scenarios while still being differeniated from other zerg units?
2) Capital ships - I do think BC's and carriers are pretty okay'ish (from a design perspective), so I don't think this should be prioritized as highly, though the BC especially is kinda boring.
3) Planetary - Basically I believe that we should try to make this a structure that is less efficient at defending harass (for example dt's), but on the other hand live longer so that it is capable of winning time for the other terran units to come back to defend it. The current version of the plantary doesn't really work that way which is why I believe a redesign is neccesary.
Here is a suggestion;
Orbital commands can now be upgraded to planateries with an upgrade that costs 100/100 (which shuold require ebay). After the upgrade has been researched the plantary will continue to provide the same benefits as it previously did under the OC.
But it doesn't have any kind of attack, however at an energy cost of 100, it's HP is doubled and it gains + 2 armor.
Scv's can also be put inside the plantary (so they are protected). When the ability is activated it has the same attack as it had in WOL/HOTS.
I believe this change will work in the sense that it will only defend harass/attacks for 30 seconds. But after those 30 seconds have passed, the terran player is now vulnerable to harass at the expansion for the next 100 seconds, and using the plantary as a "multitask-helper" has an opportunity cost in terms of 2 scans. So terrans with poor multitasking now pays a price for relying on the planatery, while better terrans will be able to defend harass by splitting up their army correctly.
4) Dropships vs protoss - I think it would be awesome if drops were more viable in the later stages of the games against protoss. Making the dropships cheaper is one step in the correct way, and time will tell if its enough against abilities like warptech and blink stalkers. However, I still like the idea of given dropships an upgrade which allows thems to pick up sieged tanks.
5) Nydus network - I suggested to make this a lot cheaper and put a supply cap on the amount of units that can be transferred through each channel to make it a smaller risk/smaller reward play. Personally I want to see nydus's and or overlord drops being used in 80%+ of games rather than just once a while, so I am biased in favor of a redesign which buffs this tech pattern (for the same reason as I am biased in favor of buffing dropships).
6) Bio vs protoss/terran - I think for the sake of diversity it would be interesting to see if we could make this unit composition more viable in those two matchups.
7) This is just a potential issue, which Danko argued for; Goliaths are too weak in the early game vs muta's. The vulture nerf vs zerg means that zerg can now be greedier against a mech'ing terrans which means that a muta opening or a muta tech switch is stronger.
Danko's suggestion was to give goliaths +2 damage vs them, but reduce how much they benefit from upgrades (so that 3/3 goliaths are still as good as they once were). I think this will require more testing, but goliaths are definitely not very good early on vs mutas (remember that this is before you have vikings with hellfire missiles).
Anything else I forgot?
Since I wrote that post I have realized that the vultures viability in tvp is too small as well and the easy "solution" would be too decrease mineral cost of tanks and buff gas cost.
Also the post didn't include the most OP ability in the game, matrix, as I think everyone acknowledges that is imbalanced. Even if nydus networks/overlrod speed were more accesible in the mid/late game I don't think a great terran player would ever lose to a great zerg player in Starbow. Basically I believe that the damage reduction matrix must never be allowed to work on mechanical units as it will be impossible to balance.
Rather, I think we should go back to the +X HP approach. Also I would suggest another small change to further increase the skill cap, give each medis 3 matrix's rather 2. Each medi should the add somewhere between +100-150 HP. By giving each medi 3 matrix's terran need higher APM to use the ability optimally.
Lastly, I think science vessels might be too easy too late game. Personally I only get a few of them as I can't afford more due to prioritizing the imbalanced matrix/tank combination higher. But when matrix's will be nerfed I think players will be more incentivized to add more SV's which simply seems to abusive with smarcast. I am not sure that me clicking "R" on a couple of lurkers is completely balanced in terms of the skill it requires to counter it from the zerg perspective.
I suggest 4 changes to make irradiate slightly more skillbased;
1) Increase its DPS by 50%
2) Total damage over the period is unchanged
3) Irradiate it self can't kill a unit (works similarly to plague, they have 1 HP left).
4) SV's start with 75 energy
This will create the following dynamic;
1) The irradiate + 2 stimmed marines combo can be used to counter one lurker rather than just one irradiate.
2) Once zerg units get irradiated (even if the unit is isolated and doesn't do any splash) he needs to retreat with the unit ASAP because if he doesn't then 2 marines can follow up and kill the lurker (or the infestor/defiler) with ease.
3) Great zerg players will be able to retreat back to queens which through tranfuses can return their HP. In that regard the queen is a soft counter to irradiate as high APM zerg players will be able to minimize the damage output of irradiate.
4) Regarding the latter change; this is primarily to compensate for the fact that irradiate has been nerfed and I just dislike playing games where I have to wait 10-30 seconds in order to get enough energy to use the ability. This will help in making EMP a more reliable counter to stasis, as I have played quite a few games where I had my SV's in position to EMP arbiters, but just didn't have enough energy. I think this is unnessary annoyance as it creates a more volatile gameplay.
Kabel on planetary
But in terms of mechanical perspective, this one feels quite easy to use?
Your definitely correct, however I don't think its very relevant. Rather I think the important thing is what kind of gameplay it promotes (more multitasking basically), and in that way it indirectly increases the amount of mechanics you need to have in order to win as terran and to win against terran.
And of course it's kind of a decision based ability as well; The opponent can lure the terran to waste 75 energy on activating the planetary ability and then attack with his main army 30 seconds later.
|
@PF / Calldown Turret / Terran defence
I will look closer at this when HoTS is out and see how it can be executed in the editor. But some kind of change will come to the PF and Terran defence.
@ Hider's list of problem areas
I agree that many of the things you mention are problematic, including Matrix. I will adress them more in detail in a coming post where I lift some areas of the gameplay I want to strengthen.
In the post I will discuss how the issues you mention can be changed to contribute to certain parts of the gameplay. The solutions you bring would probably work in the current Starbow context, but some fundamental things might change that shake things up a bit. I will return to these issues in a later post. (And give you a better reply!)
---
I will make a few larger posts in the coming days where I shed light on fundamental areas of the gameplay that I seek to improve. The changes in my next patch must contribute to improve those parts of the gameplay. So I will do this:
1. Bring a larger gameplay problem I am concerned about.
2. Present my suggestions on how to improve it.
3. Hear your ideas for changes/adjustments to improve that area of the gameplay.
The first of these larger posts will be up within a hour.
|
I thought for some time that radiate is a little spell skillbased. Instead, I've noticed that might be interesting to the new seeker missile ability (raven) on hots. This missile launches and waits 5 seconds before attacking the target. If the target moves away from a radius of 13, from where the missile is party, the latter is deactivated without causing damage. If target remains within range of the missile (13), after 5 seconds the missile pursues and hits the target, causing damage to it and in the surrounding areas. The missile inflicts 100 damage to the main target, 50 in those close to the target and 25 in those far away. The terrans have to launch the missile nor too far far from (the drive targeted could escape), nor from too close (could endanger the science vessel), striking the right balance between risk / benefit.
The seeker missile can be launched from a distance of 10.
The opponent can choose whether to run the unit, or isolate it.
This ability can create synergies with itself: One seeking missile does not kill one lurker, but if two missiles fired at close targets and different, can kill both targets.
Damage can be changed according to the type of classification units (light, "medium", armored).
Thanks for reading.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8iNW33x.jpg)
Here is the first post where I shed light on a fundamental gameplay aspect that I am concerned about.
1. I will describe why I want this type of gameplay to become more important in the game.
2. I will suggest how it can be done in the next patch.
3. I will hear your ideas, thoughts, criticism etc on the matter.
Ok. Lets go ^^
One of my main intentions with Starbow has always been to spread out the economy. Each base generates less income
compared to SC2 and BW. Thus players must have more bases in Starbow to obtain a high income.
This means that players will try to get more expansions, while at the same time harass and deny enemy expansions.
A fight for territory!
More bases equals more places to attack and defend, which promotes multiple attacks, smaller skirmishes and
harassment over deathball play. This is the types of gameplay I would like to encourage since I find it enjoyable.
Is this kind of gameplay true in the late game? Yes, when players have +5 bases each.
Is this kind of gameplay true in the early and mid game? Not to the degree I would like.
>>> + Show Spoiler + <<<
Players have their economy centralized in a few heavily defended zones on the map. Slowly they take control over new
areas by expanding. The problem is that it is a huge risk and a high investment to expand, which means that the pace
in which players truly gain territory is very slow. This also means that there are quite few areas to harass, attack,
deny etc, except in the late game when players have +5 bases each.
I would like to encourage players to be more active over larger areas of the map at all stages in the game.
I think this would lead to more dynamic, interesting and enjoyable games both for the players and the observers.
Here is my suggestion for a new concept in the game:
+ Show Spoiler +Each race can build what I call a "wagon." ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZloBT2X.jpg) - Each wagon has a decent move speed. - They cost maybe 100 minerals & 100 gas. - They can receive resources from workers. - You can only have 1 per Nexus/CC/Hatchery What would this contribute to the game? - Players will be more eager to move out and be active on the map at all stages in the game. - Larger parts of the map becomes important to control, scout and deny, since each resource area is a potential place for a sneaky wagon + workers. - The economy for all players are even more spread out, which enables more simultaneously attacks, harassment, multitasking etc over larger parts of the map at all stages in the game. - It would make it harder for players to turtle and reward those who spread out. - Deathball plays becomes worse. Even if your deathball chase away a wagon and workers from an area, they can just relocate at an other location to gain income from there instead.. - It enables more build order openings Why build a base instead of a wagon? - Hatcheries produces units. - Orbital command allows for 3 useful abilities. - Nexus provides Chrono boost and Rift. - Remember that players can only have 1 wagon per CC/Nexus/Hatchery. - Maybe wagons should not be able to produce workers. Or at a slower rate, compared to main bases? Exactly how will the wagons look like and what will they do?It depends on what type of models that are available in the HoTS editor. - Terran wagon can be as in the picture above and is built in the CC. It can load maybe 4 or 6 workers. When landed it can receive gathered resources. - Protoss wagon can be the Mothership core built in the Nexus. It can lower itself towards the ground to recieve gathered resources. Rift on the Nexus can be used to protect Probes in case of trouble. - The Zerg queen can morph into an upgraded Queen. It moves at a decent speed off creep and can recieve resources. Maybe it has an attack? Burrow movement and overlords with drop-upgrade can protect Drones and the Queen. Are you serious? - First I did not think about presenting this since it is kinda.. radical.. : p - But I actually think there are some gamplay improvements to be gained from this, although it might change a lot.. - IF this concept is realized and implemented into the game, some other factors of the game must be changed. For example all races must be able to move units out on the map earlier to gain map control. - This would bring something unique into the game that can not be found in SC2 or BW.
Things to discuss:
1. Would the introduction of this new concept make the game better in the way I aim for or would it actually make the game worse?
2. Are there any other better ways to improve the gameplay in terms of economy and territory control?
|
Interesting concept, it changes Starcraft but the question is for better or worse. I would say it is worthy of testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tkk9v27.jpg)
