- Where players fight to control large parts of the map! - When players have many bases each. That equals many places to harass, attack, deny and defend. Multitasking! - When combat is not determined by two large armies in one fight, but rather via many small attacks during the course of the game. - When players are rewarded by great micro and good army control. (aka army seperation and not deathball) - When players have many interesting options and combinations of units to use to win the game. (NOT pure bio OR mech.)
THIS is want I want to encourage even more in Starbow. I do not say it is currently bad. I just think it can be better. HOW can this be achieved with small changes?
Maybe it is possible. Please let me know!
Yes, this is fun gameplay. But I have to disagree on whether or not this is happening now. All games I've played where we are both equally good and no one cheese or goes for an early "all-in". This is what I experience now. Ref to my latest cast of HideR Vs Puccini. Lots of small engadments, no major battle. Lots of drops and harass, no death-ball. Seperation of tanks paid off (they were not too good at it though...) and great micro/multitasking was rewarded. We cannot expect this list of fun gameplay to occur if there is a great difference of skills between the players or if someone pulls half of his SCV's and goes for an "all-in" anyways. Not even BW could do that.
If my above list is not sufficient, I guess the wagon would be the next thing to try. I do feel, however, that the bio/mech choise atm is not very limiting to gameplay. It can also "trow off" players if you go for a tech switch, and they are combined in ZvT already. Marine, medic tank + vults/mines is extremly good atm.
I think it is important for all of us to remember that the number of active SB - players are few atm and changes are easily revertable. So trying something completely new does not mean it has to stay that way. Blizzard can not do what we can do atm because it would affect too many players and the whole scene. What you do Kabel, does not (sadly) affect that many atm.
On March 10 2013 00:26 Kabel wrote:
@Xiphias choice of music and the dramaturgy of his video
On March 04 2013 17:36 Xiphias wrote: I'm thinking of organizing a second tournament sometime in the future. I do not want it to be too close to the last one, so I'm adding a poll.
Poll: When is the best time to host a second tournament in Starbow?
April (7)
78%
May (1)
11%
No more tournaments please! (1)
11%
June (0)
0%
9 total votes
Your vote: When is the best time to host a second tournament in Starbow?
(Vote): April (Vote): May (Vote): June (Vote): No more tournaments please!
Also:
Poll: Would you play in the next tournament if time premitted?
Yes (10)
77%
Not sure (2)
15%
No (1)
8%
13 total votes
Your vote: Would you play in the next tournament if time premitted?
I am also thinking of holding the next one with a group stage (assuming 16 players) and a playoff (single elemination). This will probably last 3 days instead of 2. Any thoughts?
I think it is important for all of us to remember that the number of active SB - players are few atm and changes are easily revertable. So trying something completely new does not mean it has to stay that way. Blizzard can not do what we can do atm because it would affect too many players and the whole scene. What you do Kabel, does not (sadly) affect that many atm.
Yeah. But I still like to bring the discussion here in the thread. It is healthy for me to get new perspectives and thoughts on the matter from all of you who devote time to play and understand the game.
Also, ranking system. (forgot to say this in the last post). I think we sometimes expect great games between players of unsimilar skills, but we know not how different their skill level are since we have no ranking-system.
PunchTheBag seems to have vanished and his ranking system contained a bug. Since he has not made an apparance in a while I suggest we use:
Ranked play SC2ReplayStats (created by breath) has partnered with me to provide a ranking system for SC2Pro. More details on this coming very soon, but basically you will have an external program open while playing and the results of your match will be sent to a ranking database. Please check out the website for additional tools like a unique replay storing system with unique stats! It features online replay storage, league/division tracking, and is completely free! It is very easy, so sign up here!. Please do check out the TL SC2ReplayStats thread. RANKED PLAY IS NOW AVAILABLE. HOW TO: 1. Go to http://sc2replaystats.com, register, and download either the *standalone* program or the SC2Gears plugin. 2. Click on Settings on the website. 3. Open the program you just downloaded / open SC2Gears and activate the plugin. 4. On the first time use, you need to copy the hashkey from the Settings website into where the program asks for it. 5. Click the button (should turn from red to green). Leave the program/SC2Gears on as you play. 6. Go to Arcade, search "SC2Pro", and play any of the maps that are labelled Ranked with [R]. Please make sure you "Create" not join. (the loading screen contains old information, apologies) 7. Once done playing, go back to the website to view your statistics!
From SC2 Pro, just to get something up. Contact purakushi at SC2ProMod@gmail.com to get it going.
Also: We need a larger map-pool. Please bring back some of the old maps (this might be a lot of work, because of new patch...) I don't even remember half of them anymore. Actually, if you could post a list of maps used with pictures and a poll, we could vote on 2-3 maps to be added to the once already in the pool, I'm getting a bit tired of the once we now have (but DO NOT REMOVE THEM!), just add more without removing the once we have plz.
- Giving PF the auto-turret on supply ability. Give it a mineral cost (make it small risk/reward). Maybe energy. I have no numbers to add to that.
What would this accomplish? Wouldn't it just give mediocore players a chance to pay them selves out of trouble? Like; "Hey my multitasking is bad, but my macro is also bad and therefore I have 1k minerals. Therefore I will defend the DTs harassing my 4th with 2 auto-turrets".
I think that such a change adds very little to the game in terms of interesting dynamics. On the other hand the extremely buffy planetary I suggested is energy based then you can only do the trick once, and then you have to wait till your OC has 75 energy before you can activiate the planetary ability and deal with harass. Since the main reason you got the planetary in the first place should be to win time vs deathball's, then you will prefer not wasting the energy on 2 DT's, which will mean that you will be more incentivized to multitask rather than "pay your self out of trouble". So while the "pay your self out of trouble" involves a decision, its a lose-lose situation in terms of creating interesting gameplay.
- Where players fight to control large parts of the map! - When players have many bases each. That equals many places to harass, attack, deny and defend. Multitasking! - When combat is not determined by two large armies in one fight, but rather via many small attacks during the course of the game. - When players are rewarded by great micro and good army control. (aka army seperation and not deathball) - When players have many interesting options and combinations of units to use to win the game. (NOT pure bio OR mech.)
THIS is want I want to encourage even more in Starbow. I do not say it is currently bad. I just think it can be better. HOW can this be achieved with small changes?
I would like to add two things to this; First of all wouldn't you also agree that fun gameplay will punish split-second mistakes less. Like in WOL fungal/EMP/forcefields can all punish splitsecond mistakes heavily which creates a very volatile gameplay. If that's the case then I would not suggest reintroducing the EMP vs storm gameplay known from WOL as Xiphias suggests. That will rewards players who are very good during one moment rather than over a longer period. Hitting a good EMP or 3 should give you a 5-10% advantage, not a 90-10% advantage, and storms DPS should not be too high as this will make bio play too unforgiven.
We are at a stage where expanding IS required. But it is too risky, too expensive and too slow when expanding from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 bases. That is why I am tempted to try the wagon concept, to give players methods to truly stretch out on the map at all stages in the game! This is also why I want to strengthen harassment options for the races, promote seperated armies and make stuff work worse in deathballs.
I think introduction of Wagon is one solution, but buffing harass unit is another solution and is much more simple. I actually think the main differnece between 3 base play in Starbow and in BW is that harass units were a lot stonger in BW. I think if the below changes are made then the matchup will be just as multitaskbased as BW was;
1) Vultures 2 shotting probes + cost changed from 100/0 to 75/25 (the other possiblity could be to change tank cost instead of vulture cost). If this change is made then terrans will invest a lot more into vulture harass in both tvz and tvp which also mean that they will be weaker if the opponent chooses to harass them.
2) Medivacs instead of drops (which probably will mean that the engineer will have to be introduced to replace the medi). WIth the medivac into the game, bio vs X will always involve a lot of multitasking.
3) Planetary redesign - Besides making harass easier late game/deathball's weaker it also force a mech'ing terran to spread himself more thinly while on 3 bases. Previously the terran could make a planetary at his 3rd and put the majority of his tanks at his natural which means that he could not be harassed/attacked.
4) Warp tech redeisgn --> This will open up for more creativity from the terran player as he no longer has to fear that the protoss player gets into his main with a big army.
5) Nydus redesign + overlord cost reduction - This is obivious. Overlord cost reduction might not be needed, but as long as it doesn't make any timings OP, then I think it will be a change for the better.
These five changes will have relatively few unintended consequences (at least that is what I believe) and will be much more simple to implement than the Wagon thing. At the same I am very convinced that we will see a completely different gameplay and at least in the tvx matchup players will no longer be incentivized to turtle for the first 20 minuts.
- Giving PF the auto-turret on supply ability. Give it a mineral cost (make it small risk/reward). Maybe energy. I have no numbers to add to that.
What would this accomplish? Wouldn't it just give mediocore players a chance to pay them selves out of trouble? Like; "Hey my multitasking is bad, but my macro is also bad and therefore I have 1k minerals. Therefore I will defend the DTs harassing my 4th with 2 auto-turrets".
I did not expand upon this idea as much as I should have I guess. I have written about it before though. This is the "concept" I was thinking about (which is 100% inspired by the idea Kabel suggested and might even be excatly what he had in mind): The PF has a calldown autoturret that cost both minerals (maybe even gas) and energy and must be placed on a nearby supply depot. How near, I know not. If the PF auto-turret costs resources the PF itself should be fairly cheap however. maybe the PF itself gets more armor as it is calling down the turret for x seconds as well. Maybe it was a cooldown. The point is: 1. You have to place (some of) your supply depots with caution. 2. You get the time you need to bring back your army to defend small harass. 3. Larger groups of units should be able to deal with the PF before your army is there, unless you have extra defences. 4. Your opponent can now fake harass and bate you to waste minerals.
- Where players fight to control large parts of the map! - When players have many bases each. That equals many places to harass, attack, deny and defend. Multitasking! - When combat is not determined by two large armies in one fight, but rather via many small attacks during the course of the game. - When players are rewarded by great micro and good army control. (aka army seperation and not deathball) - When players have many interesting options and combinations of units to use to win the game. (NOT pure bio OR mech.)
THIS is want I want to encourage even more in Starbow. I do not say it is currently bad. I just think it can be better. HOW can this be achieved with small changes?
I would like to add two things to this; First of all wouldn't you also agree that fun gameplay will punish split-second mistakes less. Like in WOL fungal/EMP/forcefields can all punish splitsecond mistakes heavily which creates a very volatile gameplay. If that's the case then I would not suggest reintroducing the EMP vs storm gameplay known from WOL as Xiphias suggests. That will rewards players who are very good during one moment rather than over a longer period. Hitting a good EMP or 3 should give you a 5-10% advantage, not a 90-10% advantage, and storms DPS should not be too high as this will make bio play too unforgiven.
100% agree on this one. I thought EMP radius was so bad it was not doing anything and it would force less clumping of units. But, one thing that I really hate in SC2 are the "Oh! I did not pay attention for 1 sec, I lost the game." I'm talking forcefields on ramps, EMP vs feedback, concussive shells and fungals.
Idea for encourage more bases, and thus result in multiple attacks. I think that maps are the fundamental part. Search maps where the natural has 2 accesses, and the 3rd well 3 accesses. These maps facilitate multiple attacks. But this seems not enough. You may want to these two small changes: increase harvest mine's time, and reduce command centre, hatchery and nexus cost. Now you should have few harvester, but distributed on more bases. 16 harverst in one base, produces much less that distrubute into 2 groups of 8 in 2 bases. Bases are cheap, and this encourages expansion.
1. You have to place (some of) your supply depots with caution. 2. You get the time you need to bring back your army to defend small harass. 3. Larger groups of units should be able to deal with the PF before your army is there, unless you have extra defences. 4. Your opponent can now fake harass and bate you to waste minerals.
Is this not what you kinda had in mind anyway?
No I actually had the opposite in mind
Currently planetaries are very good vs small group armies and medium sized armies, but useless vs deathballs. My suggestion wil it revert it so that it is good against medium sized units, awfull against small group units and very good against deathballs.
Like lets say it currently takes 6 seconds for a deathball to kill a planetary. That is not enough time for the terrans army to reposition him self to defend the planetary. My suggestion will double the amount of time from 6 to 12 seconds, which will result in deathballs being a lot weaker. On the other hand I belivee there is no such thing as "winning time vs small armies". Like what can a small army actually to do a planetary? It can't kill the command center it self and rihgtly so, instead it should be able to do damage by A) Killing workers or B) Forcing the terran player to spend 75 energy on the planetary ability (which he really doesn't want to do). Either way the toss's harass will be succesful.
In Starbow/WOL/HOTS harassing a planetary with 2 DT's and like 3 zealots doesn't make sense as the planetary will just kill them, so obivously the protoss player will never try to do that, which leads to less multitasking in the game.
Sorry. I have a lot of things to say today. No intention of spamming the forum.
I would also like to point out that the two match-ups that I feel are closest to "fun gameplay", e.g. the list Kabel wrote and HideR expanded is TvT (see the VOD), TvZ and ZvZ to some extent. It seems that PvT and maybe PvP (not played so often, so hard to say) is more deathballish where multiple harass is more difficult. This might indicate that protoss is the black sheep of the flock and might need the most rework.
Another point must be added. Bad players will always go for the deathball, no matter how much they should not. SB should not be designed as to remove the deathball. It should be designed as to make the deathball not the most effective way to play. I don't think deathball is the best way to go in any match-up atm.
Take PvZ as an example. It is easy to go archon, zealot, stalker, high templar death-ball style and try to run over zerg. And a lesser zerg will fall. If you opponent, however is equal or better than you, then reaver-drops, dt harass and warp prism harass might jsut tear your opponent slowly apart. If you go deathball, he should be able to go doomdrop, nydus and ling run-by to punish your play style to such an extent, that you wish you had spread more out.
I guess we should aim for deathball-play being significantly worse than non-deathball play, but it will always be a viable strategy against a lesser player. Just remember your own BW play style when you first tried it. All I did for 4 years was massing hydras. That worked wonders against all who were significantly worse than me.
Btw Xipias, you previously talked about the usefullness of frenzy. I think we should stick with it, because its kind of an ability that requires time to figure out. Also I believe this will be a lot more usefull vs terran once my planetary suggestion goes through. Imagine this; You frenzy 4-7 hydras -->harass the terrans 4th/5th base with the hydras--> kill a few scvs + force the remaining to retreat, maybe even force a lift oft --> Save the hydras, either by retreating, setting up a nydus network or putting them in an overlord.
I actually talked about the uselessness of them. Maybe I misspelled, but it is defintly and underused spell and can probably be figured out more.
I do feel the planetary, however should be able to deal with small number of units, and not large, so I guess we disagree on that one. The present one deals too well with harass imo. I don't mind the new one to be able to deal with units as well, but it should be at some expense in both resources and apm, and not as easy as just making a planetary "and u'r fine".
On March 10 2013 03:36 Xiphias wrote: I actually talked about the uselessness of them. Maybe I misspelled, but it is defintly and underused spell and can probably be figured out more.
I do feel the planetary, however should be able to deal with small number of units, and not large, so I guess we disagree on that one. The present one deals too well with harass imo. I don't mind the new one to be able to deal with units as well, but it should be at some expense in both resources and apm, and not as easy as just making a planetary "and u'r fine".
The reason why I think the planetaries shouldn't be able to defend small armies efficiently is that I think static defensive structures are boring to watch and I think it is very challenging to come up with an approach which makes using static strucutres mechanically challenging. You mentioned that it should be a skill to place suply depots correctly - The problem with that approach is that I think optimal supply depot positioning will be figured pretty quickly, and then the skill cap is reached.
Secondly I don't really consider placing 2-3 auto turrets on supply depots as mechanically challenging. It's true that it will require like 4 actions, but a diamond player will be able to execute that just as well as korean GM. Of couse my planetary suggestion isn't difficult to use as well, but I think the game-dynamic it will create/incentivize will have a large skill cap.
I agree that buffing harassment units is the way to go. The only other way to make the game more harass oriented is to give players a reason to spread around the map. Map control has no tangible benefits, and while it's important in theory, it doesn't matter number-wise. Currently, spreading out your forces beyond your tightly defended bases is pointless; it'd only weaken your defenses and make your opponent liable to deathball you. You'd have to introduce something like Xelnaga Towers that give a steady supply of resources to their controller, which creates hotspots on the map to fight over. Or introduce cheaper Town Halls (something like your wagon idea), combined with sparser expansions (3 mineral patches or a lone geyser, instead of full expos), and spread these abundantly around the map. etc etc. But that'd be changing the game completely. The fact that expansions take so long to fill with workers and that resources are condensed into concentrated regions of the map will lead to defensive turtly games. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, though. That's how starcraft has always been.
@medivacs. I don't like em. Removing medics would take away Terran's ability to pressure in the early game, leading to turtly games or at least take away T's options, and push them towards mech even more. Instead, i think Dropships need to be drastically buffed. 50m/50g 1 supply 25 second build time, perhaps. That way you can afford to do the Bomber style drop everywhere tactics, while not nerfing T's early game bio.
@warpgates: idea: Warpgates take 1 supply (this can be explained with lore somehow. maybe warpgates require a technician, or they require constant Psi usage to function) This gives further reason to switch back to normal gateways, as well as stopping tosses from massing warpgates in the lategame, since they can't spare the supply.
other suggestions: I would really like to see Protoss get another core fighting unit. Both Terran and Zerg have multiple choices in army compostion, whereas protoss is always Stalker+Zealot+Support. probably a robo unit.
I'd like to see: Viking's Ground form buffed into an actually useful harass unit. Perhaps give it bonus damage to buildings.
Reintroducing Roaches as quick burrowed harassing unit. Make them terribly frail above ground, and low dps, high burst, but tough and quick while underground. Basically, make them good at: attacking defenseless units, and running away.
Adding another unit to the Factory. It currently feels very naked. Perhaps the mentioned Engineer can be added here, as a mechanical-biological unit, like the scv.
The PF issue is tough, and I sort of feel like abandoning it altogether. Planetaries are really boring. Maybe if we gave them a dodgeable projectile...? That'd allow harass to still work, with micro. Vultures would have to run around dodging PF cannonballs while taking potshots on scvs...
I would also like to point out that the two match-ups that I feel are closest to "fun gameplay", e.g. the list Kabel wrote and HideR expanded is TvT (see the VOD), TvZ and ZvZ to some extent. It seems that PvT and maybe PvP (not played so often, so hard to say) is more deathballish where multiple harass is more difficult. This might indicate that protoss is the black sheep of the flock and might need the most rework.
PvP is BRUTAL. Amount of harass options is insane. Warpins all over the map. Blink stalkers, DTs, speedlots, reavers. Basically everything can be used to harass efectively.
And in ZvT its very hard to harass terran in mid/late. In PvT its quite hard to harass terran in mid/late (and for terran to harass toss as well).
In my opinion its something wrong with terran, not toss.
I don't like em. Removing medics would take away Terran's ability to pressure in the early game, leading to turtly games or at least take away T's options, and push them towards mech even more. Instead, i think Dropships need to be drastically buffed. 50m/50g 1 supply 25 second build time, perhaps. That way you can afford to do the Bomber style drop everywhere tactics, while not nerfing T's early game bio.
I think dropship at that price combined with an SV nerf will have the same effect as introducing medivacs. However, I don't really agree that the pressure thing is really relevant.
First of all I think terrans will be compensated with either reapers or a slightly redeisgned bio-hellion assuming the medivac change goes through, which gives them early game harassment opportunities. Secondly I think medivac pressure can begin roughly around the 9-10 minute mark, which isn't that much the 8 minute medi-pressure builds.
Also are the 8 minute medi-pressure builds even exicting vs zerg? I feel there is very little micro involved. The optimal thing to do as a zerg player is probably to get a alot of spine crawlers and drone up and in that case you can't really do anything at the 8 minute mark besides clearing up creep. If he chooses to engage you with hydras and or lings, then all I feel I do as terran player is to t-a-move, maybe combined with minimal stutter-stepping.
If we compare this to the hellion + marine + medivac pushe's which dominated in the tvz era of 2011 there are a lot more micro involved with that as you have to seperately micro hellions and marines and you can choose to pick up injured units etc.
Viking's Ground form buffed into an actually useful harass unit. Perhaps give it bonus damage to buildings.
I think we should consider removing the time it takes for the viking to transform from ground mode to air mode. I want this to be almost instant.
The PF issue is tough, and I sort of feel like abandoning it altogether. Planetaries are really boring. Maybe if we gave them a dodgeable projectile...?
Yeh I also suggested that. This will make small to medium sized armies attacking the planetary really interesting to watch, however it won't help with the deathball problem, so I don't think this should be a substitute for the buffy planetary mode.
1. You have to place (some of) your supply depots with caution. 2. You get the time you need to bring back your army to defend small harass. 3. Larger groups of units should be able to deal with the PF before your army is there, unless you have extra defences. 4. Your opponent can now fake harass and bate you to waste minerals.
Is this not what you kinda had in mind anyway?
No I actually had the opposite in mind
Currently planetaries are very good vs small group armies and medium sized armies, but useless vs deathballs. My suggestion wil it revert it so that it is good against medium sized units, awfull against small group units and very good against deathballs.
Like lets say it currently takes 6 seconds for a deathball to kill a planetary. That is not enough time for the terrans army to reposition him self to defend the planetary. My suggestion will double the amount of time from 6 to 12 seconds, which will result in deathballs being a lot weaker. On the other hand I belivee there is no such thing as "winning time vs small armies". Like what can a small army actually to do a planetary? It can't kill the command center it self and rihgtly so, instead it should be able to do damage by A) Killing workers or B) Forcing the terran player to spend 75 energy on the planetary ability (which he really doesn't want to do). Either way the toss's harass will be succesful.
In Starbow/WOL/HOTS harassing a planetary with 2 DT's and like 3 zealots doesn't make sense as the planetary will just kill them, so obivously the protoss player will never try to do that, which leads to less multitasking in the game.
Planetary fortress hp increased to 2000. Base armored increased to 5 (was 1). Planetary fortress attack removed. A PF has 5 bunker spaces (increased to 8 by the space upgrade upgrade) scvs can load into a planetary fortress, they cannot repair the fortress while inside. Units within can use all their abilities, including heal, lockdown, snipe or nuke.
I still think my idea solves the program more gracefully than an ability similiar to nexus purifier beam.
The PF gives enough time against even a death ball to get its army over there, however against small army harasses can force the terran to put army inside of the PF (just like with a normal expansion). Even that is a trade-off, since if infantry are inside the PF, the scvs have nowhere to hide and are exposed. The terran has to experiement with various bunker placements and figure out what is the optimal defensive squad and bunker placement to defend an expo against a wide range of threats.
EPT
