|
On May 26 2013 08:09 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 00:27 Hider wrote:
Regarding Scout - I am not sure if I like the idea of having a unit that only has utility outside battles through countering drops/air harass. Ok the scourge does that, but it has this very interestin suicidal moment. I don't see why the Scout would be interesting with a "normal attack". Well, the Scout will have even better synergy with Corsairs (Heavy burst attacks for lifted units). It will also be the best unit for countering Science vessels, Arbiters or Vipers (if the Viper gets back in), and can possibly supplement Corsairs in Mutalisk defence. By making them slightly cheaper and faster to build we would also make them good at Overlord hunting, and with a decent (not great) AtG attack they can harass on their own as well. So I don't see how they have no utility outside battles. What I envisioned was to remove all the gimmicky spells from the Scout and make it a well balanced unit with some clear strengths and weaknesses based on its stats alone. Its main focus is combat after all. After the base unit is well designed we can add some abilities to make it more interesting if needed.
My point wasn't that it didn't have utility outside battles, but rather that the kind of "prevent"-stuff utility is a bit boring. It seems similar to the Vikings role in Sc2, except the Viking at least had some kiting-micro potential in battles. I always try to imagine a game being casted with the proposed unit, and I can't imagine casters being excited over seeing that type of Scout in use.
Infestor is in the sneaky harasser role. Right now it is basically a combat caster at lair tech, so often times Z doesn't even bother teching to Hive to get its supposed battle caster.
Plague fits the infestor role perfectly!!! As smile zerg said, its a pre battle spell.
Fungle Growth I honestly wouldn't mind see getting swapped over to Deflier, as its a mid combat spell.
As for movement, its primary tactic is burrowed movement. Xiphias has an idea I'd love to see in use, all units on top of the infestor take 5 damage a second. Sort of like eraser. Even better, plague the scvs (risks an opponent seeing it) and then patrol under workers for really fast harass. I loved infested terran drops for sneaky harass in SC2, but disliked how it supplemented army and basically just killed bases by itself. This could fit this niche.
Neural Parasite could be reworked or another spell put into its place. Then you'd have a sneaky sabatuer, harasser infestor.
A potential problem might be that in the early, the opponent will always have static defenses at his entrance to the natural (at least he should) and in the later game I think it is just most efficient from a reward/risk-analysis to use ling runbys to harass. I think in order to strenghten the infestors role as a harass unit it might need a "movement speed when burrowed"-buff.
I dislike scouts simply hard countering BC's and Carriers. Its boring. In TvP you can actually catch your opponent trying to be wayyyyy too effective vs zealots and archons by tech switching (risky but exciting). Carriers are extremely interesting vs goliaths because of how mobile they are vs the terrain bound goliath. The transition is worth it.
This same relationship can happen vice versa. P generally wants to have tons and tons of zealot archon vs a mech, and only a helping of stalkers to sweep mines and clean up vultures. BC's simply suck vs these small groups of ever present stalkers. They have no way of fighting against their maneuverability. Carriers can. It is the BC that is a failure in this regard here. You need range and maneuverability to exploit terrain. That is the entire advantage of being an air unit (besides the obvious, zealots can't shoot up). If we did buff BC attack damage to make it more efficient vs stalkers, I don't think it would lead to interesting game play. Perhaps a BC that can warp a short distance to counter blink, and a faster recharging lower damage yamato.
I am pretty sure that either 1) Feedback on the Scout needs to go or 2) the BC shouldn't have energy. Because I don't see how you can have the Scout as a unit that both counters the BC and the carrier through its damage output and further hard-counters the BC through Feedback. Even if we manage to make the scout a non-hard counter vs carriers, it will still hard-counter the BC as long as it can feedback them.
In order to make the BC and the Scout interesting I think big changes are needed, such as:
1) Feedback on Scout removed (given to Nullifier or HT instead - maybe in a new redesigned version).
2) Scout's damage vs armored signiciantly reduced.
3) Scout instead receives a skill-based ability that deals extra damage to armored.
4A) BC's yamato cannon completely redesigned. It needs to be much more interesting than just "click and 300 damage is dealt". It needs to be an ability which has the potential to be extremely cost effective vs the normal "toss composition consisting of archons and Stalkers".
4B) Instead of complete redesign, the yamato cannon gets slighly changed and the BC receives a second ability (for instance Teleport).
I prefer 4A (the big yamato cannon redesign) over a "teleport-ability" for two reasons:
1) I don't think a teleporting BC has that cool element which makes me wanna build them (the fun aspect).
2) I am not sure that even with the BC teleporting, that it would be worth getting over 3 more tanks (balance aspect).
3) Yamato cannon will still be a bit boring to use (no uncertainty).
Regarding the yamato redesign I think we can do one of two things in order to accomplish the BC being better vs lots of stalkers:
1) Make it an AOE ability.
2) Make it much more spamm'ish.
Lower energy cost will accomplish the later, however it won't create uncertainty to the ability, and thus it will still be a bit boring. My suggestion from 50 pages will create uncertainty as the amount of yamato cannons being fired once activated depends on your APM.
The one issue through is that Yamato can't be made too dependant on being countered like that because Zerg have no energy drainers, something to note while you make adjustment for the Zerg caster Lineup.
This is a valid point. But actually it won't be an issue at all with a 210-220 damage more spamable Yamato cannonm as it automtically will be worse vs zerg (due to overkilling).
But with a 210-220 damage Yamato cannon you can accomplish this vs protoss.
1) Emp a group of archons and follow-up kill them with the yamato.
2) One-shot stalkers.
As I think the BC needs to signicificantly buffed to become viable (over tanks) I think you shuld be able to fire roughly 3 of the 210-220 damage yamto's for each time you would fire the 300 damage yamato cannon.
In order to make the BC + tank combo feel dynamic vs protoss I believe we could reward the following gameplay:
1) Stalkers vs BC'less mech --> You wanna get your stalkers close to the action.
2) Stalkers vs BC + tank combo --> In the proces of you trying to get closer to the tanks the BC uses the redesigned yamato cannon to incentivize you to blink away in order to avoid taking damage from yamato.
So if the yamato cannon doesn't work against units which are 10+range away from the BC, then you can micro against it which creates uncertainty, and it also syngergizes well with mech, as tanks prefers that the stalkers blinks away, rather than that they blink on top of the tanks.
|
Im just gonna quote my old BC suggestion, and argue why I feel that this redesign is a better approach than making yamato cannon cheaper:
How my suggested redesign of the yamato cannon will work
- Yamato cannon is no longer a one-time attack. Rather yamato cannon is something you have to activate.
- When yamato cannon is activated the terran player has 0.75 seconds to target on as many of the opposing players units as he is capable of, as long as the units are withint a range of 10 of the BC.
- For each unit the terran player has clicked on, a cannon attack will be fired
- After the 0.75 seconds has passed, it will take another 1 second before the BC hits the targetted units (this "waiting" time is supposed to be slightly higher than in SC2 in order to make it slightly easier to avoid taking damage from the Yamato's).
- Each cannon will deal 210-220 damage to each target. Meanwhile the targetted units will have a red circle around them, so observers and the opposing player easily can see which units are targetted.
- You can only target each unit one time.
This ability is easy to learn
A bad player can just click on 1-2 units But very fast players are capable of dealing an insane amount of damage (maybe they can target 4-6 units).
However, this will not make the BC it self useless as a unit at lower levels due to two reasons;
1) The capital ship it self is still a pretty good a-moving unit.
2) The opponent will also be worse at remicro'ing against the yamato cannon.
The ability has such a high skill cap that it can never be mastered
You can still smartcast this unit, but smartcasting is very inefficient, as activating all the BC's yamato cannons at once is a waste of energy as you can get the same outcome by just activating one single yamato cannon.
I also believe that great players will position their BC's in a certain way prior to a battle. They will have 1 BC in front and 1 a bit behind, which will optimize the use of yamato cannon. They will begin the battle by activating the yamato cannon of the first BC, and 1 second later they will use the yamato cannon of the second BC.
How the opponent should be able to remicro against it
For the yamato cannon to miss its target, the target has to get a certain amount of yards away. The required distance can be accomplished by rifting units home, blinking them away or picking them up with a dropship.
I believe this will create a lot of excitement as spectators, as the outcome of the battle depends on the players micro rather than the amount of units the player has.
Once the yamato cannon is activated a certain tension will be created. I imagine that from an excitement POV it could be similarly to once a Nuke is placed, because noone really knows what's gonna happen. This differs from the lower cost version of Yamato cannon where it will deal the same X damage almost always.
At the same time terran players now the a "fun"-based incentive to tech to BC',s as they wanna see how many Yamato's they can manage to fire out. Maybe they will try to break their new personal records or will they will want to obtain the Starbow-record in getting the most Yamato's out. This is basically why I think this suggestion is so unique, because there doesn't excist a single ability where you so easily can measure the actual skill of the player using it, as this yamato cannon.
Why this isn't brain-dead actions
It should be easy to see by now that the optimal targets are Archons which with less than 210-220 remaining HP + shield. This means that it rewards players who are very good at combining Scicence vessel control with Yamato cannons.
The second best target is Full-HP stalkers. But there is a trade off here. If you target the stalkers closest to your tank-line, chances are that they will already be dead or heavily injured when the yamato lands 1.75 seconds later. However, if you target units further away (9-10 range from the BC), it becomes easier for the opponent to blink away/run away from the yaamto cannon (so that they don't take damage). Thus there is a clear-trade off which creates a lot uncertainity and rewards decision making.
To sum up this suggested BC accomplish the following things;
1) Reward great mechanics.
2) Reward decision making
3) Rewards positioning
4) Creates synergy between tanks, SV's and BC's.
5) Creates uncertainty and tension.
|
|
|
That isn't skill, that's 'How fast can I click?'
|
On May 26 2013 21:05 Fishgle wrote:
That isn't skill, that's 'How fast can I click?'
Sry thats a common myth. Basically everything in Starcraft comes down to precision, positioning and effective APM. Some abilities just does a better job of hiding this fact.
This Yamato cannon isn't different in that regard, it just makes it easier to measure your actual skills.
But I have also included a little part on why this rewards decision making. IMO there is no doubt that this suggestion has more depht than the current yamato cannon.
|
Gotta say i don't like it either. We should try and keep the damage output somewhat consistant. It would be easier to balance.
I do have a few ideas for the battlecruiser also and some for the carriers too, but for now ill see what Xiphias and dec think about adjusting Yamato. It is hardly Urgent either as Terran matchup are not really affected much even if the battlecruiser suck.
|
@hider
Let me ask you a question then. Why is this designed as "spam click everything you want to hit asap" rather than a simple AOE select ability? Or, why not design it as, Use X-click to mark everything you want to fire at (marking them like HSM for both players, until target leaves range), and then use Y to fire the cannons (no time limit). imo those would be much better ways to handle this ability, and they are more of a "deliberate and methodical" design which is what starcraft is about.
In your example, it isn't a choice of targeting the closer stalkers or the further away stalkers, it's merely clicking on as many of them as possible since that's going to give you a better result than the strategic targeting.
spam apm isn't fun nor interesting at all. I'd say the Ghost's snipe is better designed than your ability, since it is limited by mana, which forces the player to be careful with their targets, much moreso than your ability. And I'm pretty sure the consensus is that Snipe is a bad ability....
|
On May 26 2013 21:44 Sumadin wrote:
Gotta say i don't like it either. We should try and keep the damage output somewhat consistant. It would be easier to balance.
I do have a few ideas for the battlecruiser also and some for the carriers too, but for now ill see what Xiphias and dec think about adjusting Yamato. It is hardly Urgent either as Terran matchup are not really affected much even if the battlecruiser suck.
I think he didn't like it for the wrong reasons. Kabel had a similar argument, but at the same time he actually enjoyed Matrix a lot, which previously was the worst mass spam-ability of all time. The hatred of spam-abilities is IMO just a prejudice, and when you watch great players use it, you'll quickly enjoy it. Both Matrix and my suggested yamato Cannon have the commong thing, that it is easy for players to notice when a great player is using it and a bad player is using it. At the same time (unlike Snipe and Infested terrans), both abilities gives opportunities for counter-play.
But anyway, you argue that you want the damage output to be the same? But doesn't that remove any kind of uncertainty (?), which IMO per definition = boring gameplay. I don't understand why you want to see a battle where the outcome (to a large degree) is determined beforehand.
Regarding, the "easiness" of balance, I actully think your somewhat wrong here. Abilities are unbalanceable, when one player can micro against it, but the other player isn't rewarded for better micro. This means that the ability can't be balanced across skilllevels. If the suggested Yamato Cannon works as inteded (that the opponent can remicro against it), then it can "easily" be balanced by adjusting the duration of the "time-limit".
But regardless of what the BC will end up, I want it to be an awesome unit that adds a new element to the game. I don't think just adding a teleport-ability will be enough to accomplish the "awesome"ness.
Let me ask you a question then. Why is this designed as "spam click everything you want to hit asap" rather than a simple AOE select ability? Or, why not design it as, Use X-click to mark everything you want to fire at (marking them like HSM for both players, until target leaves range), and then use Y to fire the cannons (no time limit). imo those would be much better ways to handle this ability, and they are more of a "deliberate and methodical" design which is what starcraft is about.
In your example, it isn't a choice of targeting the closer stalkers or the further away stalkers, it's merely clicking on as many of them as possible since that's going to give you a better result than the strategic targeting.
spam apm isn't fun nor interesting at all. I'd say the Ghost's snipe is better designed than your ability, since it is limited by mana, which forces the player to be careful with their targets, much moreso than your ability. And I'm pretty sure the consensus is that Snipe is a bad ability....
Can I ask you if you read my updated post? There is a clear tradeoff between which "type" of stalkers you want to target. Just targetting stalkers blindly will likely lead to wasted Yamato cannons.
And please give me one example of units where decision-making in battles matters more than my suggested yamato cannon.
Examples of brainless actions which despite that are quite popular from an spectator POV:
- Splitting
- Kiting.
- Placing storms on clumped up units.
Taking your logic to the extreme, we could e.g. just as well make kiting something the computer did for us.
There are 3 reasons for why I prefer this not to be an AOE ability:
1) Differentiate it from EMP. If the opponent has clumped up archons for instance, you rather wanna EMP them 3 times than use yamato cannon (talking about spam.........). With yamato cannon you can target 1-2 of the "emp'ed" archons and then 1-2 stalker which you expect to have full life 1.75 seconds from now on.
2) Seeker missile also overlaps a bit too much with Irradiate
3) Seeker Missile scales too well due to smartcast. With my suggestion it is alot more difficult to control 3 BC's than just 1 BC.
The point to make BC's, tanks and SV's complements instead of substitues.
The advantage of having a time-limit
It creates tension and uncertainty since there is a noticeable difference between how effective a great player is at using the yamato compared to a mediocore player. By tension I am thinking of a "Now the big thing is gonna happen"-moment, similarly to the tension Nukes creates. If you can spread your Yamato's out over a longer period, no tension will ever be created.
Besides (this isn't the main argument though), it creates an unique element to Starbow. While I believe we should be careful about unique/special changes for core units, I think creativity is a really good thing for "niche-units" such as tier 3 capital ships.
A bit more clarification on when I believe rewarding EAPM is a good idea and when it isn't:
It is a good idea to reward EAPM when it is visually appealing to casual spectators (e.g. matrix and splitting), but a bad idea when only "hardcore" gamers can notice the difference between medium EAPM and high EAPM (no MBS is an example of a bad way of rewarding EAPM)
|
@Hider this is not alien shooting game. Niether is it duck hunting game. But your idea is basicaly this. Such ability does not have anything to do in starcraft, as starcraft is strategy game, and just listenining to it sounds like listening to opinion of some shooter game player. Yeah, even shooter games require skills, but I cannot simply imagine your ability in any SC2 mod. Reason is simple - it feel unstrategic - why do you need to spam-click everything? It feels more like you are cannon crew inside of BC itself than being general, who gives orders, while drinking whiskey. Sorry, Hider, but this idea is not good.
|
On May 26 2013 22:37 Project:WayOfFreedom wrote:
@Hider this is not alien shooting game. Niether is it duck hunting game. But your idea is basicaly this. Such ability does not have anything to do in starcraft, as starcraft is strategy game, and just listenining to it sounds like listening to opinion of some shooter game player. Yeah, even shooter games require skills, but I cannot simply imagine your ability in any SC2 mod. Reason is simple - it feel unstrategic - why do you need to spam-click everything? It feels more like you are cannon crew inside of BC itself than being general, who gives orders, while drinking whiskey. Sorry, Hider, but this idea is not good.
I also need to ask you this as well:
And please give me one example of units where decision-making in battles matters more than my suggested yamato cannon.
Examples of brainless actions which despite that are quite popular from an spectator POV:
- Splitting
- Kiting.
- Placing storms on clumped up units.
Taking your logic to the extreme, we could e.g. just as well make kiting something the computer did for us.
Or is your argument that we can reward EAPM if it decreases damage taken(?) (kiting and splitting) but not if it increases damage output?
To me that seems like an arbitrary rule, but I am curiouswhy you think that makes for a more entertaining game (for comparsion you can find my "rule" in the bottom of my most recent post).
Secondly, I don't believe unit control has anything to do with strategy. This was actually something Destiny talked some time ago. Once you play enough games you, you know exactly how to use the units in various situations, and everything becomes about mechanics. That unit control is about strategy is more of a "romantic" myth.
But where Starcraft/Starbow instead should reward decisions is in the "macro-oriented" part (builds).
|
On May 26 2013 22:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 22:37 Project:WayOfFreedom wrote:
@Hider this is not alien shooting game. Niether is it duck hunting game. But your idea is basicaly this. Such ability does not have anything to do in starcraft, as starcraft is strategy game, and just listenining to it sounds like listening to opinion of some shooter game player. Yeah, even shooter games require skills, but I cannot simply imagine your ability in any SC2 mod. Reason is simple - it feel unstrategic - why do you need to spam-click everything? It feels more like you are cannon crew inside of BC itself than being general, who gives orders, while drinking whiskey. Sorry, Hider, but this idea is not good. I also need to ask you this as well: Show nested quote +And please give me one example of units where decision-making in battles matters more than my suggested yamato cannon.
Examples of brainless actions which despite that are quite popular from an spectator POV:
- Splitting
- Kiting.
- Placing storms on clumped up units.
Taking your logic to the extreme, we could e.g. just as well make kiting something the computer did for us. Or is your argument that we can reward EAPM if it decreases damage taken(?) (kiting and splitting) but not if it increases damage output? To me that seems like an arbitrary rule, but I am curious to understand why you think that makes for a more entertaining game (for comparsion you can find my "rule" in the bottom of my most recent post). Secondly, I don't believe unit control has anything to do with strategy. This was actually something Destiny talked some time ago. Once you play enough games you, you know exactly how to use the units in various situations, and everything becomes about mechanics. That unit control is about strategy is more of a "romantic" myth. But where Starcraft/Starbow instead should reward decisions is in the "macro-oriented" part (builds).
Nope, you dont really understand what I am saying. Let me tell you this.
There is big difference between things like kiting, and using other abilities and your ability.
When you use storm, it is like "use 75 energy to drop storm there" - which have feel of "ORDER" you gave it.
When you use snipe(which is closer to your ability), it is like "sacrifice 25 energy to snipe that unit, then 25 more for that and 25 more for that" - which is more spammy, but also have feel of "ORDER" you gave to unit.
Unlike that, your ability is like "use XXX energy for yamato cannon and then bam that bam this bam that bam this bam that"... first part may have feel of order, but after that you have another feeling of "Sitting behind that damn yamato cannon and aiming" which is feel you never should be getting in strategic game. You never should feel like you are playing shooter game, when playing strategy game. That is difference.
|
Well Skill-based play can be archieved by other ways than trying to design something that outright won't work for lower-APM players. Alright ill share my idea then.
Barrage:
Rememper all the times where Battlecruisers would just rain down fire directly below itself. In case not then here is some recaps:
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb2c6v1z914
I think something similar could actually be useful for the battlecruiser. Basicly at a rather large energy cost, it starts spewing fire down damaging everything directly below it. And it is not soft damage, it will kill most units stupid enough to stay within it throughout the entire duration. The battlecruiser can still move while this is on.
With this ability the battlecruiser essentially becomes a tool for zoning rather than actually killing. For the opponent it becomes a game of trying to outmicro the Battlecruiser(Challenge accepted?  ) while getting units in position to take it down. Now the last part is easier said than done because as we know the battlecruiser have a gazillion health(more or less).
Now while you are dodging the barrage you might suddenly find yourself running into a minefield. Or into sieged tanks. Or even entrenched bio. Basicly stuff you don't want to run into, but behind you is a rain of death so there isn't much choice. Thus comes the position element and what will show when a skilled player uses it.
|
Well Skill-based play can be archieved by other ways than trying to design something that outright won't work for lower-APM players. Alright ill share my idea then.
I don't think thats a complete fair representation. My idea is that a gold-league player should be capable of landing 1-2 yamato's (as I argued in my first post). So it does "work", just less efficiently, but are gold league players intimidated by the fact that they their mechanics can be easily measured now? I would have thought it increased their motivation to improve their yamato-control instead.
When that is said, I think the "fun" part of this yamato completely comes down to psychology, and I think this is difficult to analyze in theory (because IMO a lot of the responses in this thread are based on the "romantic" myth). For instance the advantage that the "marine-micro" has over this yamato cannon is that marine-micro does a better job of hiding the fact that it's all about EAPM and precision. But does that matter in an actual game? I think that (assuming this gets implemented) that players wouldn't feel this ability was more "spammy" than most other stuff in the game, but I admit that there is a chance I am wrong here.
I think something similar could actually be useful for the battlecruiser. Basicly at a rather large energy cost, it starts spewing fire down damaging everything directly below it. And it is not soft damage, it will kill most units stupid enough to stay within it throughout the entire duration. The battlecruiser can still move while this is on.
With this ability the battlecruiser essentially becomes a tool for zoning rather than actually killing. For the opponent it becomes a game of trying to outmicro the Battlecruiser(Challenge accepted? ) while getting units in position to take it down. Now the last part is easier said than done because as we know the battlecruiser have a gazillion health(more or less).
Now while you are dodging the barrage you might suddenly find yourself running into a minefield. Or into sieged tanks. Or even entrenched bio. Basicly stuff you don't want to run into, but behind you is a rain of death so there isn't much choice. Thus comes the position element and what will show when a skilled player uses it.
This could also possible work as it would prevent units from getting too close to the tank/bc line (synergy). However, wouldn't that make it much better vs zealots/meele units than vs stalkers?
|
well..
i feel like stating obvious stuff just because i can :D
i find it more skill dependant to have a AoE efffect and then have the opponent split his forces to minimalize damage.
This idea is not good.
|
i like sumadin's suggestion a lot better ^_^
hider, i don't think you get it. Nothing in this game requires high apm. Not drops, not macro, not storm, nothing. Everything in this game is a single click, maybe two. That's what makes it fun for casual players. Imagine if every ability in the game required a ton of apm. Imagine if storm was channeled, and did 5 damage for every time you clicked within its aoe. Or if Dark Swarm's miss chance was modified by how many times you click on it. Etc.
Even the abilities you mentioned which are somewhat spammable, (snipe, matrix, IT) have something extremely important, which makes them inherently balancable - Mana costs. Your idea doesn't (i mean, it does, but it isn't limited by that and instead by clicks-per-second). hence it will need to be, for balance reasons, a completely shit ability for slower players, and at best an okay one for faster players.
tl;dr - How fast can I click isn't a fun limitation.
|
On May 26 2013 23:52 Izerman wrote:
well..
i feel like stating obvious stuff just because i can :D
i find it more skill dependant to have a AoE efffect and then have the opponent split his forces to minimalize damage.
This idea is not good.
Is your logic that it is better to make the BC ability an AOE-effect as it is a better way of rewarding skill?
I would generally agree with that, however the question is whether that won't overlap too much with EMP/Irradiate. The point here (as previously stated) is to make BC's and SV's complement each other.
If on the other hand you believe that increasing damage (so that good players can deal 200 damage with spell X, while a worse player can only deal 100 damage against the same opponent) is a bad idea, then I would like to hear your argument for why you prefer minimize-damage taken approach.
To me they both seem to reward the similar things (effective APM and mouse precision) and both can be quite entertaining to watch.
On May 26 2013 23:58 Fishgle wrote:
i like sumadin's suggestion a lot better ^_^
hider, i don't think you get it. Nothing in this game requires high apm. Not drops, not macro, not storm, nothing. Everything in this game is a single click, maybe two. That's what makes it fun for casual players. Imagine if every ability in the game required a ton of apm. Imagine if storm was channeled, and did 5 damage for every time you clicked within its aoe. Or if Dark Swarm's miss chance was modified by how many times you click on it. Etc.
Even the abilities you mentioned which are somewhat spammable, (snipe, matrix, IT) have something extremely important, which makes them inherently balancable - Mana costs. Your idea doesn't (i mean, it does, but it isn't limited by that and instead by clicks-per-second). hence it will need to be, for balance reasons, a completely shit ability for slower players, and at best an okay one for faster players.
tl;dr - How fast can I click isn't a fun limitation.
"Nothing in this game requires high apm.....". Are we playing the same game???
You don't think there is a significant difference between a high APM marine splitter and a low APM marine splitter? You can test the difference your self in marine splitting custom game and see what level you can get do with 50 apm. My prediction is that you won't get very far as it is 100% effective EAPM and mouse precision. The exact same thing as my suggested Yamato cannon.
Regarding storms, you can't look at this isolated. You don't just get one HT, and you also need to split them up to avoid EMP's. HT'ers are also extremely EAPM intensive.
If we could make a measurement of EAPM per ressource cost HT'ers and marines would have a migh higher score than my BC suggestion.
Lets do it the other way around: Imagine the normal HT was removed and you could only get one super HT (cost 250/750). Storm still worked the same way as previously (though higher damage). Then someone told you that this HT was too easy too use optimally given its cost (since you just would use one storm in an entire battle) - How would you respond?
My point with this example is that we should balance the mechanics required in relation to the cost of the unit. Making one 50/150 HT as APM intensive as my suggested BC is obviously overkill. However, I don't think its unreasonable to demand that a BC becomes roughly as difficult to use as controlling 2-4 HT's simoulltaneously.
The point is that if you want to use the most awesome stuff in Sc2 optimally (drops, units, abilities), then you need very high EAPM and mouse precision. But of course it's not like you can't use my suggested yamato cannon at all if your a gold league player. You just use it less efficient than a better player.
Out of curiousity, I almost wanna know your explanation for why there is a correlation between skill level and effective EAPM.
How fast can I click isn't a fun limitation.
But "how fast I can click untill I run out of energy" is more fun?
Or maybe that kinda explains why you find playing Starcraft stressful and instead prefers Dota/LOL?
Why Matrix had to be energy-based
In case you didn't know, Matrix wasn't always energy-based. It was a mass-spamable ability with a short cooldown. However, in it self that wasn't problematic as it was one way of rewarding EAPM and mouse precision. However, it was so strong that you didn't have to make any other type of other micro to win with bio. Kiting and splitting really didn't matter if everything was just matrix'ed all the time. So irionally, making matrix energy-based actually increased the neccesity of having high EAPM for bio as you know need to do everything at once when you go bio which is ridicilous difficult. I estimate that you need at least 400+ EAPM in battles with bio to be cost effective late game against a 200 EAPM protoss.
My suggested Yamato Cannon doesn't really reduce the micro-neccesity of other abilities/units as Matrix did, so it doesn't have to be energybased (per shot).
|
On May 26 2013 23:31 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
I think something similar could actually be useful for the battlecruiser. Basicly at a rather large energy cost, it starts spewing fire down damaging everything directly below it. And it is not soft damage, it will kill most units stupid enough to stay within it throughout the entire duration. The battlecruiser can still move while this is on.
With this ability the battlecruiser essentially becomes a tool for zoning rather than actually killing. For the opponent it becomes a game of trying to outmicro the Battlecruiser(Challenge accepted? ) while getting units in position to take it down. Now the last part is easier said than done because as we know the battlecruiser have a gazillion health(more or less).
Now while you are dodging the barrage you might suddenly find yourself running into a minefield. Or into sieged tanks. Or even entrenched bio. Basicly stuff you don't want to run into, but behind you is a rain of death so there isn't much choice. Thus comes the position element and what will show when a skilled player uses it.
This could also possible work as it would prevent units from getting too close to the tank/bc line (synergy). However, wouldn't that make it much better vs zealots/meele units than vs stalkers?
Well it is not really the goal to make Stalkers unuseable as a counter to BCs, rather the goal is to make sure you might want to use something better. It is early but ill throw up some numbers. Lets say this barrage does 30 damage each second over 12 seconds. 360 damage overall if a unit stays the entire duration. You know how many stalkers you need in order to kill a Battlecruiser in less than 12 seconds? 8! And that is just barely. If the stalkers for some reason don't micro and stand in this they will be dead by second 6.
So with the right numbers it will be so you clearly wanna prefer to get out of the way, or disable barrage with Phase missile. Also this is a land ability only so flying units will be able to unload their full fury without higher risks. Needless to say there is friendly fire too so don't use this in a deathball.
|
On May 27 2013 00:18 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 23:31 Hider wrote:
I think something similar could actually be useful for the battlecruiser. Basicly at a rather large energy cost, it starts spewing fire down damaging everything directly below it. And it is not soft damage, it will kill most units stupid enough to stay within it throughout the entire duration. The battlecruiser can still move while this is on.
With this ability the battlecruiser essentially becomes a tool for zoning rather than actually killing. For the opponent it becomes a game of trying to outmicro the Battlecruiser(Challenge accepted? ) while getting units in position to take it down. Now the last part is easier said than done because as we know the battlecruiser have a gazillion health(more or less).
Now while you are dodging the barrage you might suddenly find yourself running into a minefield. Or into sieged tanks. Or even entrenched bio. Basicly stuff you don't want to run into, but behind you is a rain of death so there isn't much choice. Thus comes the position element and what will show when a skilled player uses it.
This could also possible work as it would prevent units from getting too close to the tank/bc line (synergy). However, wouldn't that make it much better vs zealots/meele units than vs stalkers? Well it is not really the goal to make Stalkers unuseable as a counter to BCs, rather the goal is to make sure you might want to use something better. It is early but ill throw up some numbers. Lets say this barrage does 30 damage each second over 12 seconds. 360 damage overall if a unit stays the entire duration. You know how many stalkers you need in order to kill a Battlecruiser in less than 12 seconds? 8! And that is just barely. If the stalkers for some reason don't micro and stand in this they will be dead by second 6. So with the right numbers it will be so you clearly wanna prefer to get out of the way, or disable barrage with Phase missile. Also this is a land ability only so flying units will be able to unload their full fury without higher risks. Needless to say there is friendly fire too so don't use this in a deathball.
Im still not sure I understand the real purpose here. Is it to create an area where you don't want the opponent to enter?
If so, where would you position it? Just in front of your tank line?
Because if you do that, then it would overlap extremely much with Nerve Jammer. But if you position it too far away from your tanks, then it can be picked up by stalkers (even though it takes damage). But what is the purpose of that? What kind of advantages does it give the terran player to position your BC somewhat in front of your tank army only to be forced back by the stalkers?
So what I am asking for is some more examples of specific situations where it could the terran player strategical advantages that he could not obtain in different ways.
|
On May 27 2013 00:27 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 00:18 Sumadin wrote:On May 26 2013 23:31 Hider wrote:
I think something similar could actually be useful for the battlecruiser. Basicly at a rather large energy cost, it starts spewing fire down damaging everything directly below it. And it is not soft damage, it will kill most units stupid enough to stay within it throughout the entire duration. The battlecruiser can still move while this is on.
With this ability the battlecruiser essentially becomes a tool for zoning rather than actually killing. For the opponent it becomes a game of trying to outmicro the Battlecruiser(Challenge accepted? ) while getting units in position to take it down. Now the last part is easier said than done because as we know the battlecruiser have a gazillion health(more or less).
Now while you are dodging the barrage you might suddenly find yourself running into a minefield. Or into sieged tanks. Or even entrenched bio. Basicly stuff you don't want to run into, but behind you is a rain of death so there isn't much choice. Thus comes the position element and what will show when a skilled player uses it.
This could also possible work as it would prevent units from getting too close to the tank/bc line (synergy). However, wouldn't that make it much better vs zealots/meele units than vs stalkers? Well it is not really the goal to make Stalkers unuseable as a counter to BCs, rather the goal is to make sure you might want to use something better. It is early but ill throw up some numbers. Lets say this barrage does 30 damage each second over 12 seconds. 360 damage overall if a unit stays the entire duration. You know how many stalkers you need in order to kill a Battlecruiser in less than 12 seconds? 8! And that is just barely. If the stalkers for some reason don't micro and stand in this they will be dead by second 6. So with the right numbers it will be so you clearly wanna prefer to get out of the way, or disable barrage with Phase missile. Also this is a land ability only so flying units will be able to unload their full fury without higher risks. Needless to say there is friendly fire too so don't use this in a deathball. Im still not sure I understand the real purpose here. Is it to create an area where you don't want the opponent to enter? If so, where would you position it? Just in front of your tank line? Because if you do that, then it would overlap extremely much with Nerve Jammer. But if you position it too far away from your tanks, then it can be picked up by stalkers (even though it takes damage). But what is the purpose of that? What kind of advantages does it give the terran player to position your BC somewhat in front of your tank army only to be forced back by the stalkers? So what I am asking for is some more examples of specific situations where it could the terran player strategical advantages that he could not obtain in different ways.
Sure. The basic concept was to "fix the fantasy" of the Battlecruiser. It is this huge battlemachine with insane armor and more gun than you would care to count. When we see it, it is either the rescue that brings our guys home from certain death or this huge impending doom that MUST be dealt with and takes priority. And in reality when it comes to its use, it is constantly in need of babysitting and only really treating when there is 6 or more or it will be taken down by footsoldiers.
So as for its uses. The biggest difference from Nerve jammer is that this creates a zone, where your opponent simply won't wanna go into, where as nerve jammer is more a zone where your opponent doesn't wanna fight inside. Say you are doing a push out, you know that a chunk of his army is at home dealing with a drop and the rest is out on the field. So you engage, he falls back to unite his forces but on the way back you have got a BC in position. Dependant on the map layout his army could now be caught or he would have to take another route away from his base.
In terms of Siege breaking this is still as good as ever like Yamato. If you are pushed back to your base, then nothing would be more frightning than 2 or battlecruisers flying towards the base raining down death and potentially forcing you to give up that position.
I guess it would also be really lethal if a surprise BC got into the mineral line and unleashed this. Granted worker harrasment is usually less dangerous around the time where BCs are out but it could still be devastating.
|
As just a usually silent stalker I just had to chime in and say Hider's idea (and argument) sound much more solid to me. I don't get why you'd dislike it when spamming Blink, Snipe, EMP; splitting, kiting, manually picking up hurt units into then Dropship again etc. are so very similar and arguably more straightforward decisions
It's just a first draft - mana costs, a different way to handle input time and such are all still possible
Some of the replies sounded like they think SC is a turn-based game or something, pretty ridiculous
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
