|
Reapers, medics, and science vessels don't come close to the gas dumps P and Z have.
In what regard? Because they are too good gas dumps?
Things like JohnnyZerg sugguested, giving the seeker hunter sort of attack to land an irradiate. We'll see.
That is probably the worst change you can make to irradiate IMO. First of all, I don't think this really makes them noticeable more difficult to control (seeker missile for instance is just mass spam in battles). Secondly, this discourages small-battle skirmishes as it has no real utility when not in a battle. 3rd) If irradiate becomes somewhat easily avoidable then it needs to do splash damage to compensate, and then it is basically seeker missle 2.0.
So therefore irradiate needs to do guaranteed damage. But it is a problem when you can just click on a couple of lurkers which then dies 20 seconds later. Thats just too easy. So IMO it needs to do damage, but in order to kill a lurker the terran player should be required to spend a bit more APM.
And as I said multiple times, reapers will suffer from the same thing eventually once terran players figure out the game. There is no way in hell that reapers can be balancedl late game while being 1-supply. This unit simply needs to be 2-supply unit.
|
Russian Federation216 Posts
O_o leave irradiate alone
irradiate + that attack blocker works perfecly, player need to think - is he need guaranteed kill 20 secs later or he need just disable lurker for 5 sec now? these choices is a good aspect, leave them
|
I always post at the oddest times (math-teachers have holes in their schedule...)
Let me put specifics aside and talk about generalities. I’ve pondered and looked at Starbow more the last 3-4 days than ever before and I have some remarks I want to share.
What I will write are my own thoughts and takes on Starbow and I thought you would like to know now that I have more influence over the development of the game. I will write down what I feel Starbow should be in my mind and hopefully it is similar to what you all feel and what Kabel intended as well. I will compare a lot to StarCraft: BroodWar (BW) and Starcraft 2 (SC2) since those are the games that it makes sense to compare to. (I wish I was more eloquent…)
The basic principles of Starbow:
1. Most Starbow units should be fun to use, and not just be a counter to some other unit(s).
2. Each unit should have its well defined role and purpose and there should be very few to none “hard – counters”, but many “soft – counters”.
3. The larger and more versatile your army becomes, the more difficult it should be to use it perfectly. I really feel this is the case at the moment. It is easier than BW but more difficult than SC2.
4. The basic principles of economy and expanding should be the ones from BW and not from SC2. That is; More bases = always better than few bases if you can defend them. (This maxes out around 5-6 fully saturated bases, but that rarely happens anyway) Few workers per base for maximal saturation. Each worker is more precious than in SC2.
5. Each unit should benefit from micro.
6. The three races should be as balanced as possible but have very few units with overlapping roles (e.g.: The stalker should not be a hydralisk).
7. Army position and defense should be just as important as the size of the army. (The player with the largest army does not win by default).
8. One wrong split-second decision should rarely cost you a game. A game should be won by making more than one right decision from you and lost because your opponent makes more than one wrong decision. Early-game might be an exception to this rule.
There might be more, but these are the ones I can think of at the moment.
In light of these points I will use some time this week to look at each unit specifically and make sure they all have well-defined roles and purposes (and soft – counters) which should be helpful for future patching. I am not saying that Starbow is not following these principles. I think we have succeeded in many areas. These are more for making sure we are where we want, and things to consider before posting new suggestions.
Now, I would like feedback on these GENERAL PIRINCIPLES. Are they good to go by? I am not interested, not right now at least, whether or not some units fall out of these principles. I am more interested if these are good principles to go by when trying to make changes. Maybe some more principles should be added? I would especially like to hear from Kabel if this collides or go hand-in-hand with his thoughts.
|
4. The basic principles of economy and expanding should be the ones from BW and not from SC2.
You need to elaborate this. In tvz bw terran sat on 2 bases for like 20 minutes.
One wrong split-second decision should rarely cost you a game. A game should be won by making more than one right decision from you and lost because your opponent makes more than one wrong decision. Early-game might be an exception to this rule.
I think everyone agrees this. Do you have any specific concerns in Starbow which you feel is too split-second mistake oriented?
Each unit should benefit from micro.
Agree, but I think you need to clarify a bit further what you mean by micro, because "micro-abilities" like Sc2 fungal growth and forcefield are pretty poorly designed abilities.
IMO micro from player A should give Player B a chance to remicro against that micro from A. That will (ceteris paribus)
1) Minimize split-second mistakes leading to losses.
2) Increase duration of battles.
3) Make micro more entertaining to watch.
4) Make it easier to balance the game throug various skill levels as each unit will require a somewhat similar amount of skill to use and play against.
|
I will elaborate 
@BW eco, see edit.
@ Micro: What you said
@ Split second: I had the concern for the G-4 charges of the reaper, but I now that they are in factory tech, it feels more safe.
There are in fact, many split-second mistakes that can be quite deteremntal in Starbow atm, but I do not feel they are game-changing IN THEMSELVES, and few are in early-game which is good.
Examples: Burrowed lurkes vs bio, if terran fogets to scan, Baneling bombs, reaver drops, G-4 chrages on a mineral line, unattende vulture-drop, firebat-drop (love to see more of those ) Storm-drop.
I am NOT saying that any of these are a concern, but something to keep an eye on.
|
Regarding micro: Isn't that the problem with snipe and lockdown? There is no real ways for the opponent to remicro against those abilities after they have been casted.
I think it will be a lot more interesting if the opponent (through great micro) could minimize the damage taken by the abilities, and at the same time that will give you an opportunity to buff the ghosts abilities (as it wouldn't make the game imbalanced).
Regarding your general philosphies, isn't there a missing a big elephant? IMO the most important princicple of them all is that players throughout the entire game should be incentivized to do other things than just turtle/defend.
|
This is why we have general principles, so see flaws like there potentially might be with Snipe and Lockdown. Thanks for bringing it up, we will look at it for later. Snipe is particualrry difficult. It's either bad or borken imo, and kinda boring.... hmm... It stays for now, but might get the hammer later.
@Incentivizing Attack /Harass. This is where we differ (slighlty ... I think...). I do not mind players optimizing defence rather than finding new ways to attack. A game where both players only turtle unitll 200/200 is ofc not the goal at all, but the defenders advantage should be such that it is not enough to have a big army, You must use that army very effectivily as well, in order to kill your oppodent, even if he has a smaller army than you. If we nerf defences too much, we lose this.
There is a fine balance between the defenders advantage / more than just biggest army to win and too much turtle play....
This is one of the reasons I like the new pathing. It naturally gives a defenders advantage without having to change any stats, or make harass-play more difficult.
|
On April 25 2013 20:04 Xiphias wrote:
This is why we have general principles, so see flaws like there potentially might be with Snipe and Lockdown. Thanks for bringing it up, we will look at it for later. Snipe is particualrry difficult. It's either bad or borken imo, and kinda boring.... hmm... It stays for now, but might get the hammer later.
@Incentivizing Attack /Harass. This is where we differ (slighlty ... I think...). I do not mind players optimizing defence rather than finding new ways to attack. A game where both players only turtle unitll 200/200 is ofc not the goal at all, but the defenders advantage should be such that it is not enough to have a big army, You must use that army very effectivily as well, in order to kill your oppodent, even if he has a smaller army than you. If we nerf defences too much, we lose this.
There is a fine balance between the defenders advantage / more than just biggest army to win and too much turtle play....
This is one of the reasons I like the new pathing. It naturally gives a defenders advantage without having to change any stats, or make harass-play more difficult.
I am not talking at all about reducing defenders advantage (AI is completely irrelevant here). If anything it is closer to the opposite. But the problem is that if one player has no way to do cost effective damage to the opponent then the game optimal strategy for both players is to turtle throughtout the majority of the game.
Defenders advantage = You can have a small group of units positioned in a specific location where they can be extremely cost effective against a larger army.
However if you make it too easy to defend every single location at once then the optimal strategy is to turtle way too heavily.
Again, I underline optimal, because starbow players aren't playing the optimal way, either because they have not figured it out yet or because there is no money on the line (winning doesn't really matter that much).
But Starbow shouldn't IMO be a game where the only reason why you harass or try to attack is out of boredom.
Rather each race need to have efficient ways to harass the opponent throughout the midgame, so that players are incentivized to play in an entertaining way. Again, defenders advantage has very little to do with creating the correct harass-incentivies.
A game where both players only turtle unitll 200/200 is ofc not the goal at all
But 20 minute = no action happening will be the optimal strategy if you don't focus on creating the correct incentivies.
|
On April 25 2013 15:31 Xiphias wrote:
3. The larger and more versatile your army becomes, the more difficult it should be to use it perfectly. I really feel this is the case at the moment. It is easier than BW but more difficult than SC2.
I proposed the tempest that make precisely what you have written (cause lost damage). info:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18386230
The carrier is the opposite, it is easier and more effective if used in large quantities.
I have propose an unit that should be used one at a time to make the most potential, and it seems to have been ignored (a sort of "no smart casting" but with the normal attack of Tempest). Carrier is a great unit, but this tempest can make more.
@looong range:
Not watch problem, there are vikings and goliaths, "lockdown" and "yamato". You can not say that terran has no counters for Tempest. This is heart of the starbow, if terran not use "other units", die.
@Tempest vs zerg
Zerg has hydralisk for the battlefield, and with viper (dark swarm), hydralisk are invulerable. Remember scourge/devourer, and if added, new ground anti air zerg unit: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18369606
|
On April 25 2013 20:37 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 20:04 Xiphias wrote:
This is why we have general principles, so see flaws like there potentially might be with Snipe and Lockdown. Thanks for bringing it up, we will look at it for later. Snipe is particualrry difficult. It's either bad or borken imo, and kinda boring.... hmm... It stays for now, but might get the hammer later.
@Incentivizing Attack /Harass. This is where we differ (slighlty ... I think...). I do not mind players optimizing defence rather than finding new ways to attack. A game where both players only turtle unitll 200/200 is ofc not the goal at all, but the defenders advantage should be such that it is not enough to have a big army, You must use that army very effectivily as well, in order to kill your oppodent, even if he has a smaller army than you. If we nerf defences too much, we lose this.
There is a fine balance between the defenders advantage / more than just biggest army to win and too much turtle play....
This is one of the reasons I like the new pathing. It naturally gives a defenders advantage without having to change any stats, or make harass-play more difficult. I am not talking at all about reducing defenders advantage (AI is completely irrelevant here). If anything it is closer to the opposite. But the problem is that if one player has no way to do cost effective damage to the opponent then the game optimal strategy for both players is to turtle throughtout the majority of the game. Defenders advantage = You can have a small group of units positioned in a specific location where they can be extremely cost effective against a larger army. However if you make it too easy to defend every single location at once then the optimal strategy is to turtle way too heavily. Again, I underline optimal, because starbow players aren't playing the optimal way, either because they have not figured it out yet or because there is no money on the line (winning doesn't really matter that much). But Starbow shouldn't IMO be a game where the only reason why you harass or try to attack is out of boredom. Rather each race need to have efficient ways to harass the opponent throughout the midgame, so that players are incentivized to play in an entertaining way. Again, defenders advantage has very little to do with creating the correct harass-incentivies. Show nested quote + A game where both players only turtle unitll 200/200 is ofc not the goal at all But 20 minute = no action happening will be the optimal strategy if you don't focus on creating the correct incentivies.
Not really a problem.
You saw this with sc2 ZvP because it simply wasn't very good to poke unless you absolutely had the best position.
For Starbow, coordinated assaults are much better than spamming high tier units into blobs and counter blobs.
Z has dark swarm and gaurdians. To fight vs late game zerg you want to keep territory so you have room to fall back.
P late game is a bloody wrecking ball because Z has to whittle down their army. P doesn't want Z to just take the entire map.
Remember the BW philosophy: always be aggressive and find some way to hurt your opponent, even when defending.
The gameflow isn't really SC2 anymore.
Find me a game where both players are optimal if they just sit and turtle.
The most extreme example is an eco mech, but that is his decision to play safe as possible to gobble up more bases. He could still be finding angles with vultures and spreading mines. He could be dropping and finding areas to hit with a banshee. If he is going defencive mech he should still at least be pushing forward to gain more territory. With overkill, stronger tanks, mines, and vultures that can quickly scout the opponent and come back for the fight, the best siege line is a deep one.
|
On April 25 2013 22:50 JohnnyZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 15:31 Xiphias wrote:
3. The larger and more versatile your army becomes, the more difficult it should be to use it perfectly. I really feel this is the case at the moment. It is easier than BW but more difficult than SC2. I proposed the tempest that make precisely what you have written (cause lost damage). info: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18386230 The carrier is the opposite, it is easier and more effective if used in large quantities. I have propose an unit that should be used one at a time to make the most potential, and it seems to have been ignored (a sort of "no smart casting" but with the normal attack of Tempest). Carrier is a great unit, but this tempest can make more. @looong range: Not watch problem, there are vikings and goliaths, "lockdown" and "yamato". You can not say that terran has no counters for Tempest. This is heart of the starbow, if terran not use "other units", die. @Tempest vs zerg Zerg has hydralisk for the battlefield, and with viper (dark swarm), hydralisk are invulerable. Remember scourge/devourer, and if added, new ground anti air zerg unit: + Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=18369606
Here is what the carrier can do.
It'll have a shorter initial range. This means that if you a-move it, you are probably going to take a lot of damage. Vs any decent force you will get casualties.
First you will get your carriers to acquire targets and launch their interceptors and then move backwards (the range while already shooting is bigger than initial).
For maximum effectiveness you need to micro each carrier group. Constantly moving carriers at max range are at max effectiveness. The more carriers you have, the harder it is to avoid damage. Getting all of your carriers to launch their interceptors takes longer because formations are bigger.
I know what your idea is, give overkill to the tempest to ensure loss of dps yeah?
Tempest already had this. Any unit with a missile has overkill.
Easier to see in siege tank because of low attack rate, high damage.
The problem is that it increases its burst damage (the initial hit). Tempest is now faster than before and can abuse air vs ground targets. If it can kite and abuse dead space, AND have really good burst damage it could be broken.
Try the new tempest during the new patch and we'll see if it is fun or not, then maybe we'll try another way.
|
On April 26 2013 00:34 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 20:37 Hider wrote:On April 25 2013 20:04 Xiphias wrote:
This is why we have general principles, so see flaws like there potentially might be with Snipe and Lockdown. Thanks for bringing it up, we will look at it for later. Snipe is particualrry difficult. It's either bad or borken imo, and kinda boring.... hmm... It stays for now, but might get the hammer later.
@Incentivizing Attack /Harass. This is where we differ (slighlty ... I think...). I do not mind players optimizing defence rather than finding new ways to attack. A game where both players only turtle unitll 200/200 is ofc not the goal at all, but the defenders advantage should be such that it is not enough to have a big army, You must use that army very effectivily as well, in order to kill your oppodent, even if he has a smaller army than you. If we nerf defences too much, we lose this.
There is a fine balance between the defenders advantage / more than just biggest army to win and too much turtle play....
This is one of the reasons I like the new pathing. It naturally gives a defenders advantage without having to change any stats, or make harass-play more difficult. I am not talking at all about reducing defenders advantage (AI is completely irrelevant here). If anything it is closer to the opposite. But the problem is that if one player has no way to do cost effective damage to the opponent then the game optimal strategy for both players is to turtle throughtout the majority of the game. Defenders advantage = You can have a small group of units positioned in a specific location where they can be extremely cost effective against a larger army. However if you make it too easy to defend every single location at once then the optimal strategy is to turtle way too heavily. Again, I underline optimal, because starbow players aren't playing the optimal way, either because they have not figured it out yet or because there is no money on the line (winning doesn't really matter that much). But Starbow shouldn't IMO be a game where the only reason why you harass or try to attack is out of boredom. Rather each race need to have efficient ways to harass the opponent throughout the midgame, so that players are incentivized to play in an entertaining way. Again, defenders advantage has very little to do with creating the correct harass-incentivies. A game where both players only turtle unitll 200/200 is ofc not the goal at all But 20 minute = no action happening will be the optimal strategy if you don't focus on creating the correct incentivies. Not really a problem. You saw this with sc2 ZvP because it simply wasn't very good to poke unless you absolutely had the best position. For Starbow, coordinated assaults are much better than spamming high tier units into blobs and counter blobs. Z has dark swarm and gaurdians. To fight vs late game zerg you want to keep territory so you have room to fall back. P late game is a bloody wrecking ball because Z has to whittle down their army. P doesn't want Z to just take the entire map. Remember the BW philosophy: always be aggressive and find some way to hurt your opponent, even when defending. The gameflow isn't really SC2 anymore. Find me a game where both players are optimal if they just sit and turtle. The most extreme example is an eco mech, but that is his decision to play safe as possible to gobble up more bases. He could still be finding angles with vultures and spreading mines. He could be dropping and finding areas to hit with a banshee. If he is going defencive mech he should still at least be pushing forward to gain more territory. With overkill, stronger tanks, mines, and vultures that can quickly scout the opponent and come back for the fight, the best siege line is a deep one.
It was a problem in basically every single mathcup in WOL. Its less of a problem in tvz today but thats basically it.
In starbow premineral nerf TvP suffered heavily from it as the optimal strategy was to turtle. Now again, note the difference between optimal and what players did. Players may use subopimal strategies for varous reasons, but I still believe it is important to make sure that the correct incentives further.
But the "incentive" principle needs to be in there as one always needs to think about how this impact the optimal way of playing the game (whether it creates more multiasking and action or whether it incentives turtling). There are a lot of variables to analyze, which I discussed in a previous post.
But I think it is very easy (if you dont think about incentives) to end up with a game where no action is within quite a large time period is the optimal way to play the game (even BW actually suffered from this. The main difference between BW and sc2 was the late game. Not the midgame which IMO too often was too turtlish rather than harassbased).
But besides I actually think many of the general principles can be removed as they don't actually serve any purpose in them selves, but they are just ways to incentive players to split up their army in the late game. Below is an example;
IMO I would try a different approach where I outlined the desired gameplay and skillset required to win games, and then made a plan on how to get there.
Desired gameplay
Multitasking and action as an optimal strategy in every mathcup and throughout all the stages of the game.
How to get there
- Give proper incentives to harass in the midgame
- Make players takes bases quicker (mining).
- Make players have less units to defend each base (economy).
- Make it possible for a small group of units in a defensive location to be extremely cost efficient against a large group of units (defenders advantage).
So the difference between "my method" and Xiphias general philosophies is that I outline the difference between the means to the end, and the end.
|
On April 26 2013 00:43 decemberscalm wrote:
I know what your idea is, give overkill to the tempest to ensure loss of dps yeah?
Tempest already had this. Any unit with a missile has overkill.
Easier to see in siege tank because of low attack rate, high damage.
The problem is that it increases its burst damage (the initial hit). Tempest is now faster than before and can abuse air vs ground targets. If it can kite and abuse dead space, AND have really good burst damage it could be broken.
The solution is simple: reduce the movement speed of the tempest or reduce hp / shield.
|
I tend to agree that the tempest in its current form and the carrier are to similar with the carrier being way more fun. That being said, the tempest model and attack look and feel very good/protoss to me so it would be nice to find a role for it.
This is just brain storming and is a radically different role and there for would need to be testing and may just suck or be really cool.
Rename the Tempest to the Nullifier. The Nullifier has low to medium damage with long range (low DPS)... the caveat is that its attack interferes with that units active abilities. So for instance, a Science Vessel being fired on by a nullifier would be unable to use its abilities. A hydra being fired on would be unable to burrow. A marine couldn't stim etc.
A unit that functioned like this would be a good mix in to most army compositions, but wouldn't suffer from the death ball, since its lower damage would mean that on its own it couldn't beat any other comparable air or anti air unit in a straight up fight. Choosing what to fire on would also be critical in battles, for instance you could A move an your 4 nullifiers may be attacking 4 marines and stopping them from stiming or you could have stopped the siege tanks from sieging instead.
This would be a radical departure and make it more of a general support unit cable of adding some damage and the nullify effect into a fight. the time a unit is nullified would be tricky to balance, but this could be fun.
On April 26 2013 03:52 JohnnyZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 00:43 decemberscalm wrote:
I know what your idea is, give overkill to the tempest to ensure loss of dps yeah?
Tempest already had this. Any unit with a missile has overkill.
Easier to see in siege tank because of low attack rate, high damage.
The problem is that it increases its burst damage (the initial hit). Tempest is now faster than before and can abuse air vs ground targets. If it can kite and abuse dead space, AND have really good burst damage it could be broken. The solution is simple: reduce the movement speed of the tempest or reduce hp / shield.
|
Idea for tempest: reduce the projectile speed (to something really slow, like 2.5) - Imagine the projectile traveling so slowly that the tempest can attack again before the first one even hits. A tempest would ALWAYS overkill (even when there's only one tempest attacking), unless you manually switch targets. Let them have high dps, but attacks that can be avoided (using burrow, medic shield, blink, etc) due to their slow move speed. Also, if the player isn't carefully targeting with their tempests, you won't get their full dps.
There you go. A fun unit, with chance for micro on both sides, that is bad in death balls, that is different enough from the carrier.
thoughts?
|
On April 26 2013 04:35 Fishgle wrote:
Idea for tempest: reduce the projectile speed (to something really slow, like 2.5) - Imagine the projectile traveling so slowly that the tempest can attack again before the first one even hits. A tempest would ALWAYS overkill (even when there's only one tempest attacking), unless you manually switch targets. Let them have high dps, but attacks that can be avoided (using burrow, medic shield, blink, etc) due to their slow move speed. Also, if the player isn't carefully targeting with their tempests, you won't get their full dps.
There you go. A fun unit, with chance for micro on both sides, that is bad in death balls, that is different enough from the carrier.
thoughts?
High cooldown + projectile + splash damage (that is neccesary if projetile) sounds like an interesting combo worth experimenting with.
|
With that description it sounds a lot like an air reaver... except you could dodge easier.
On April 26 2013 05:07 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 04:35 Fishgle wrote:
Idea for tempest: reduce the projectile speed (to something really slow, like 2.5) - Imagine the projectile traveling so slowly that the tempest can attack again before the first one even hits. A tempest would ALWAYS overkill (even when there's only one tempest attacking), unless you manually switch targets. Let them have high dps, but attacks that can be avoided (using burrow, medic shield, blink, etc) due to their slow move speed. Also, if the player isn't carefully targeting with their tempests, you won't get their full dps.
There you go. A fun unit, with chance for micro on both sides, that is bad in death balls, that is different enough from the carrier.
thoughts? High cooldown + projectile + splash damage (that is neccesary if projetile) sounds like an interesting combo worth experimenting with.
|
On April 26 2013 04:26 The_Overmind wrote:
I tend to agree that the tempest in its current form and the carrier are to similar with the carrier being way more fun. That being said, the tempest model and attack look and feel very good/protoss to me so it would be nice to find a role for it.
This is just brain storming and is a radically different role and there for would need to be testing and may just suck or be really cool.
Rename the Tempest to the Nullifier. The Nullifier has low to medium damage with long range (low DPS)... the caveat is that its attack interferes with that units active abilities. So for instance, a Science Vessel being fired on by a nullifier would be unable to use its abilities. A hydra being fired on would be unable to burrow. A marine couldn't stim etc.
A unit that functioned like this would be a good mix in to most army compositions, but wouldn't suffer from the death ball, since its lower damage would mean that on its own it couldn't beat any other comparable air or anti air unit in a straight up fight. Choosing what to fire on would also be critical in battles, for instance you could A move an your 4 nullifiers may be attacking 4 marines and stopping them from stiming or you could have stopped the siege tanks from sieging instead.
This would be a radical departure and make it more of a general support unit cable of adding some damage and the nullify effect into a fight. the time a unit is nullified would be tricky to balance, but this could be fun.
This would be a very different unit and not a capital ship. so if we went for this solution it would have to be in addition to the carrier (which is fine).
I am currently trying to map out every single unit (yes, you heard me) and make sure they all have their well-defined role. This is also to make sure each race has what it needs in terms of basic army units, harass options, spell casters to deal with various situations etc... A couple of units that stand out already is the Ghost and the Viking.
I know vikings are suppose to deal with anti-air AOE (good vs crossairs and mutas), but irradiate already takes care of that. It is hard to fins a role for the viking that does not overlap with goliath / irradiate. You terran players out there: In what scenario would you make vikings? They only use for them that I can see is vs a zerg player who is MASSING mutalisks, but even then, they are not that good....
And Ghosts.... I agree that both Snipe and lockdown are not great spells in terms of micro and gameplay. I agree with HideR that a spell should do more dmg, the less your oppodent micro, and these spells are not great in that regard. Irradiate is a great example of that. It will always do something, but a good player can minimize the dmg quite well. Nerve jammer is also the same way. It can kill lurkers, or force unburrow, dependent on the opponents reaction. I have some quite weird ideas for the Ghost that I will share later that could fill some role, and also intensify harassment in mid-game.
Snipe is a bad irradiate and lockdown is a bad nerve-jammer (in some uses of the spell), so there is too much overlapping there.
Also, I'll be traveling tomorrow but should be back on Saturday for some gaming.
Another thing to remember: We will continue with the next patch as scheduled regardless of new ideas that have developed lately. We will test this for a while and then there will probably a new patch. We just want all the stuff into the game before we do much more since there are so many upgrades and stats that need to be fixed so this can be build up properly again.
|
On April 26 2013 05:13 The_Overmind wrote:With that description it sounds a lot like an air reaver... except you could dodge easier. Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 05:07 Hider wrote:On April 26 2013 04:35 Fishgle wrote:
Idea for tempest: reduce the projectile speed (to something really slow, like 2.5) - Imagine the projectile traveling so slowly that the tempest can attack again before the first one even hits. A tempest would ALWAYS overkill (even when there's only one tempest attacking), unless you manually switch targets. Let them have high dps, but attacks that can be avoided (using burrow, medic shield, blink, etc) due to their slow move speed. Also, if the player isn't carefully targeting with their tempests, you won't get their full dps.
There you go. A fun unit, with chance for micro on both sides, that is bad in death balls, that is different enough from the carrier.
thoughts? High cooldown + projectile + splash damage (that is neccesary if projetile) sounds like an interesting combo worth experimenting with.
Guess that is kinda true.
Though, Reaver is good vs "weak" units. Tempest could probably be better vs "stronger" units.
Reaver is also way too difficult to avoid taking damage from. I'll imagine that it should be slightly easier to avoid taking damage from tempests.
|
I know vikings are suppose to deal with anti-air AOE (good vs crossairs and mutas), but irradiate already takes care of that. It is hard to fins a role for the viking that does not overlap with goliath / irradiate. You terran players out there: In what scenario would you make vikings? They only use for them that I can see is vs a zerg player who is MASSING mutalisks, but even then, they are not that good....
Glad you are bringing this up. I don't think Vikings really are neccesary at this point. Also I think BW-wraiths look alot cooler than banshees, so it would be awesome if you could replace banshees and vikings with wraiths (maybe implement moving shot would be awesome).
It would work as follows: You activate it for about 5 seconds. Within that timeframe you may move your friendly units that are within a certain radius (numbers can be decided later..) of the Ghost to any other location within that radius. You can only move one unit at a time, and it will kinda look like "abduct" but you don't have to move the unit to the ghost, you can move it around within the radius.
Possible uses: Move tank-lines back as toss is trying to break a position. Move units into bases to harass if there is a cliff in between and you have a spotter (scan). Since Ghost is not an early-game unit, I think this could work. At least it would be cool to try This is an ability that would reward fast hands and good unit-placement and that could probably see more uses than I can think of atm.
I know it sounds a bit crazy but what do you think? I have not even run this by dec yet, just some crazy idea that popped into my head. Some Ghosts can do this in the Starcraft universe (I've been reading books) so it's not far fetched in that regard.
Indeed, sounds crazy and will be tough to get right, but I say do it. Try experimenting with this, it may work. Make this replace lockdown, which IMO is more boring than snipe.
Snipe on the other hand can be fixed by making it projectile based (terran doesn't have any). Make it work like Seeker missile in HOTS with a red dot, but make the following changes to snipe;
1) 25-50 energy cost for one snipe that does 100 damage to one unit (or so).
2) To avoid taking damage you have to move your units a bit away from the red dot (like 0.25 radius, so not a lot).
3) Projectile time should be roughly 2 seconds (so it should be difficult to avoid).
I guess 75/75 nukes combined with being able to get as many nukes in one silo as you possibly can (maybe also quicker research time) will make nukes see a lot more action.
At the same time, I still don't see any logical argument for not giving ghosts stim? I believe mobility (and battle micro) should be the main strenght(s) of bio, and giving it stim would make bio feel more mobile, it would buff the ghost and it probably wouldn't have any unintended consequences (?).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
