|
On May 27 2013 01:05 Sumadin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 00:27 Hider wrote: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.
I think I understand it now, thanks.
I think the overall idea is quite interesting, but I also think it will need some tweaking in order to have a practical use. For instance I believe that the BC will be too vulnerable if you use it (unprotected) to block of the patches. I am pretty sure that blink a critical amount of blink stalkers will just kill, and the time it has delayed the opponent will almost never be worth it.
One tweak may be to give it a bit of range (instead of right beneath it).
But at the same time we also have to ask whether we want to have a BC which significantly increases defenders advantage in the late game (because I think that will be its primary use. A mech'ing terran prefers to attack in a deathball rather than split up his forces in two different location, so I don't think we will see it that often in situations where you try to block of the opponent that is trying to defend one of his bases).
But what will the consequences be of a stronger late game defenders advantage? Is it desireable? I actually thought of one the potential unintended consequences with my BC suggestion was that it would be easier to use defensively than offensively.
|
On May 27 2013 01:08 Trotim wrote:
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
Once again. SC2 is strategy game. It have to have strategy feel. Hiders ability is turning part of SC2(even small part) into "Shot the duck" game. That have completely unstrategic feel.
|
On May 27 2013 01:40 Project:WayOfFreedom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 01:08 Trotim wrote:
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 Once again. SC2 is strategy game. It have to have strategy feel. Hiders ability is turning part of SC2(even small part) into "Shot the duck" game. That have completely unstrategic feel.
Please respond to my previous post because I think your comparing apples with oranges.
|
On May 27 2013 01:50 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 01:40 Project:WayOfFreedom wrote:On May 27 2013 01:08 Trotim wrote:
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 Once again. SC2 is strategy game. It have to have strategy feel. Hiders ability is turning part of SC2(even small part) into "Shot the duck" game. That have completely unstrategic feel. Please respond to my previous post because I think your comparing apples with oranges.
I already did few posts ago. Still waiting for reaction.
|
On May 27 2013 01:53 Project:WayOfFreedom wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 01:50 Hider wrote:On May 27 2013 01:40 Project:WayOfFreedom wrote:On May 27 2013 01:08 Trotim wrote:
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 Once again. SC2 is strategy game. It have to have strategy feel. Hiders ability is turning part of SC2(even small part) into "Shot the duck" game. That have completely unstrategic feel. Please respond to my previous post because I think your comparing apples with oranges. I already did few posts ago. Still waiting for reaction.
Sorry didn't notice.
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.
Yes that is exactly what my suggestion does. You don't have to pay extra for stuff, instead it is kinda "fixed" (initial energy cost).. But you don't explain why that makes the game worse in any way. You argue that it becomes more FPS'ish. But isn't it more FPS'ish when I attack with a single marine over and over? Or isn't it Quake'ish when you run around and try to doge stuff.
My point is, lets stop with all these comparisons. That is definitely like an apple to orange comparision and serves no purpose at brining the discussion forward. Instead, lets focus on what creates fun games because I think we can agree that in the end, that is what matters, right?
As I understand you, you believe that it becomes less of a strategical because we turn the variable cost into a fixed cost. However, what I think you forget is that it creates another choice. Now you have to think much more carefully about when you use the Yamato cannon , because you can easily end up doing no damage if the opponent just retreates.
With Snipe there is actual 0 decision/strategical decision. Your just looking for those HT's and want to snipe them, in realitity the energycost in Sc2 isn't a real tradeoff. Because that energy was always determined to go sniping the HT's.
And please compare my suggested Yamato cannon to the old yamato cannon. With the old yamato cannon there was 0 deciision. You just used it in a battle and then you would (almost) always do damage. In that way you can't possibilty argue that this suggestion removes strategical decisions from the game.
So my point is: Just because there is a variable energy cost, doesn't mean there is an actual trade off. The tradeoff on which unit to target with my suggested yamato cannon is a lot mroe complicated (more variables to take into account) than the decision on when and how to snipe.
When that is said, I don't wanna sound like this becomes rocket scicence in any way. Sc2 isn't rocket scicence. Anyone playing the game at master level or above basically knows how to control their units, its just execution which is lacking for them. If you don't activately play the game though, you may think that all these strategical choices have a lot of depth, but as I previously argued, that's just a romantic myth.
|
On May 27 2013 01:08 Trotim wrote:
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
I think the Starbow's target group (too some extent) isn't those who play Sc2 competitively (lets define that at mid-master level+). Because if you do play Sc2 a lot, you don't really care about small mods, instead you wanna get higher rank on ladder and end up in GM.
So instead many observers of this forum are inactive players who rather watch/discuss the game than play it. While there is nothing wrong with this in it self, it does mean that those players are more inclined to be influenced by the "romantic" myth that Sc2 is about strategy and not about EAPM. I think I have never heard such a statement from any active master player, because at that level you know have mechancially challenging Sc2 can be.
At the same time, it is actually the EAPM which makes Sc2 entertaining to watch. Execution of entertaing stuff like splitting and dropping aren't determined by "strategical" knowledge and decision making, but instead by raw mechanics. So that is why that I feel we should try to make the BC more mechanically demanding. Of course it doens't have to be my suggestion (because it might not be fun afterall - Maybe a tweaked version of Sumadin's BC or something 3rd could work better).
My theory of unit design has always been that unit should be easy to use but difficult to master. While I think that this is the case with my BC, it might be perceived differently by lower level players. It's possible that they feel too much pressure if they can only get off 2 Yamato's compared to their diamond/master-buddy who can get off 4. The counterargument to that would be: Wouldn't they also feel a lot of unpleasant pressure when their banelings kills all their marines and end in the game? At least you don't lose the game if you just get off 2 Yamato's. Bad marine-splitting can have much more severe consequences for the game.
|
On May 27 2013 02:03 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 01:53 Project:WayOfFreedom wrote:On May 27 2013 01:50 Hider wrote:On May 27 2013 01:40 Project:WayOfFreedom wrote:On May 27 2013 01:08 Trotim wrote:
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 Once again. SC2 is strategy game. It have to have strategy feel. Hiders ability is turning part of SC2(even small part) into "Shot the duck" game. That have completely unstrategic feel. Please respond to my previous post because I think your comparing apples with oranges. I already did few posts ago. Still waiting for reaction. Sorry didn't notice. Show nested quote +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. Yes that is exactly what my suggestion does. You don't have to pay extra for stuff, instead it is kinda "fixed" (initial energy cost).. But you don't explain why that makes the game worse in any way. You argue that it becomes more FPS'ish. But isn't it more FPS'ish when I attack with a single marine over and over? Or isn't it Quake'ish when you run around and try to doge stuff. My point is, lets stop with all these comparisons. That is definitely like an apple to orange comparision and serves no purpose at brining the discussion forward. Instead, lets focus on what creates fun games because I think we can agree that in the end, that is what matters, right? As I understand you, you believe that it becomes less of a strategical because we turn the variable cost into a fixed cost. However, what I think you forget is that it creates another choice. Now you have to think much more carefully about when you use the Yamato cannon , because you can easily end up doing no damage if the opponent just retreates. With Snipe there is actual 0 decision/strategical decision. Your just looking for those HT's and want to snipe them, in realitity the energycost in Sc2 isn't a real tradeoff. Because that energy was always determined to go sniping the HT's. And please compare my suggested Yamato cannon to the old yamato cannon. With the old yamato cannon there was 0 deciision. You just used it in a battle and then you would (almost) always do damage. In that way you can't possibilty argue that this suggestion removes strategical decisions from the game. So my point is: Just because there is a variable energy cost, doesn't mean there is an actual trade off. The tradeoff on which unit to target with my suggested yamato cannon is a lot mroe complicated (more variables to take into account) than the decision on when and how to snipe. When that is said, I don't wanna sound like this becomes rocket scicence in any way. Sc2 isn't rocket scicence. Anyone playing the game at master level or above basically knows how to control their units, its just execution which is lacking for them. If you don't activately play the game though, you may think that all these strategical choices have a lot of depth, but as I previously argued, that's just a romantic myth.
No, you either lack ability to understand me, as we certainly dont think alike, or you just reject to understand me. I dont care which is it, but I dislike it, as I quite respect you.
SC2 is not pure strategic game, basicaly, it is just bit of strategic game. Yes, micro and stuff, unit control ETC. But it gives you feel of general. While, as I stateed and claimed 3 times before, your ability emits this feel - http://www.classicgamesarcade.com/game/21615/free-duck-hunt-game.html ... and honestly, I dont believe ANYONE here come to SC2 to play this. You tell me to stop comparsion and then compare your ability with old yamato.
One good thing for you. Just because old yamato cannon is bad, does not mean yours one is good. I dont see how that implication OLD yamato bad -> my one good came from your mind. All things you state, you just describe what your yamato do, instead of why it is good.
And about strategy, never in my post I said anything about strategy, I was talking about "strategical feel", which is what we want from starcraft. Feel of an damned old crazy general sitting on chair and giving orders. Not feel of guy closed in BC shooting ducks. That is all.
|
One good thing for you. Just because old yamato cannon is bad, does not mean yours one is good. I dont see how that implication OLD yamato bad -> my one good came from your mind. All things you state, you just describe what your yamato do, instead of why it is good.
I agree, but my point is that you should be fair with your criticism. You kinda implied that my suggested Yamato cannon would remove the strategical feeling from the game which isn't true (right?). Instead, you could have argued that it didn't give enough strategy compared to a hypothetical other suggestion.
Anyway, I compared my suggested Yamato with Snipe as you used that as an example. My point is that with Snipe there is never an actual decision. Maybe you "feel" like there is, but I can't really control what you "feel", so I don't feel like it is fair that you asses my suggestion based on feelings rather than logical arguments.
Let me try to compare my suggested yamato cannon to Snipe in the context of an FPS game. Lets say you have one weapon, which will always hit the opponent once you attack as long as you can see him (which is unrealistic, but lets just assume it).
It costs 25 energy every time you attack with it, but that doesn't imply that there is a any strategical depht/feeling (w/e) to it as you always will use it once you spot the opponent.
On the other hand say there is another weapon, which only works when you activate it. However it takes a short time to activate it and the opponent can run away in the meantime. After it has been activated, you can't use it again for another 2 minutes, so there is a real risk of activating it too early.
Again, I can't control what you think, but I am pretty sure that if you ask the average stranger on the street, they would argue that the latter weapon had more strategy to it than the former.
All things you state, you just describe what your yamato do, instead of why it is good.
I described that it accomplishes five things in my first post (I think) where the current yamato did neither of them. As I felt that it was very obvious why those five things were awesome, I haven't spent further time on them.
But it gives you feel of general.
Again, never heard such an argument before from anyone who plays Sc2 somewhat competitively. This definitely seems like you would prefer turnbased strategy games.
But even if I am "strawmanning" you here, I don't think my suggested yamato cannon is noticeable different than any other type of ability in the game. You used snipe as an argument, and I think i disprooved why that isn't a viable example.
|
@ Battlecruiser.
I'm not a moderator of this forum, but please end this discussion now. It's turning into: "No, you don't understand! No, YOU don't understand!" We (me and dec) understand all of the ideas so far, and I think further discussion of this topic is unfruitful atm.
@ Wikia!
Our hero GamanNo has done a LOT of work at the wikia and we now have all important stats for all Starbow units there. Good to use for balance discussion to see the raw data. Check it out (and contrubute??) at:
starbow.wikia.com
Zerg spellcasters.
This is the main focus of this post. So we cut off Viper's wings... I agree with Kabel, this creates some very similar spell-casters so we can't just stop here. We have to either develop further or just revert back. Let me percent two logical plans:
Plan A:
We continue to explore with the ground defiler but try to create more diversity between the zerg casters without making one of them fly. The natural choice would then be the infestor since it has quite fast burrow movement.
We would then try to change the infestor slightly by giving it more of a harass oriented ability / spell. Dec mentioned my "infested ground" idea which is a passive ability that deals 5 dmg per sec (numbers can be adjusted) to all enemy units standing on top of a burrowed infestor. This would work very well with plague, if you can cast one off first at a mineral line.
Suggeted spells and lineup:
- Infestor: Infested ground, Neural parasite and plague.
- Defiler: Consume, Dark Swarm and Fungal growth (debatable...)
Since plague is more of a pre-combat spell than a combat spell, this would make the infestor the pre-combat/sneacky harasser/infiltrator while the defiler is more strait - up battle spellcaster.
Plan B
We let the deflier grow out it wings and forget that this change ever happened. Maybe change Dark Swarm along some of the lines suggested by some of you.
Plan C?
Bring back the Viper but let Viper switch Tier with infestor. I personally am not too big of fan of this idea. Having a fairily mobile, flying T2 spell-caster seems really hard to balance. Especially if it has the same spells as the current infestor.
I almost want to make a poll between Plan A or B, but that's not they way to go.
I would personally love to go with Plan A, but I think it will lead to more weeks with debates and balancing, which seems almost unnecessary since Starbow could be very close to "complete". What to you all think of Plan A? Too big of a change?
Nothing is decided atm.
|
With plan C we would obviously tone down the strenght of the Viper's abilities, so it could work in that regard. Plan B is the easier said than done (I think its quite unlikely that we figure out a proper way to tweak dark swarm on the viper).
But overall this sounds like a good strategy. I would focus a bit on not making the infested ground feel gimmicky (it shouldn't be a complete "surprise"-tactic. That is kinda why I would want to experiment with a very fast infestor while burrowed.
|
On May 27 2013 04:26 Hider wrote:
But overall this sounds like a good strategy.
Which plan sounds like a good strategy?
|
On May 27 2013 04:28 Xiphias wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 04:26 Hider wrote:
But overall this sounds like a good strategy. Which plan sounds like a good strategy?
Ehh. Plan A = 1st priority. If that dosn't work then Plan B. If that doesn't work then Plan C.
That's kinda how I imagined that prioritizing plans worked..... 
|
Okay on topic then.
Infested ground.. it is kinda similar to my barrage idea, and personally i don't think it will work out for the infestor. It was a design that was questionable on a 600 HP unit and the infestor got less than a 1/4 of that. "But it will burrow", Yes i know so it will be under ground when it will be blown to pieces. With Terran scans you can basicly always assume he got detection. What is it going to do against protoss, when the infestor can't even get past the forge fast expand?
I mentioned before that Zerg have no energy drain ability. Could that be something to maybe consider while you are looking at Zerg spellcasters?
|
I personally really like plan C, simply because its such an elegant solution to a difficult problem.
A flying caster with dark swarm is not the best design, but double ground casters with similar abilities is kinda meh too. Making the t2 caster the flying one fixes a tonne of problems in itself - You can again put the two most powerfull Zerg spells on the same caster, a mobile harassy caster is really something that could be a nice design. Also some of the problems with the Viper so far has been the lack of spells to compete with Dark Swarm for energy usage. Without DS the Viper might be a lot easier to balance.
|
On May 27 2013 04:26 Hider wrote:
With plan C we would obviously tone down the strenght of the Viper's abilities, so it could work in that regard. Plan B is the easier said than done (I think its quite unlikely that we figure out a proper way to tweak dark swarm on the viper).
But overall this sounds like a good strategy. I would focus a bit on not making the infested ground feel gimmicky (it shouldn't be a complete "surprise"-tactic. That is kinda why I would want to experiment with a very fast infestor while burrowed.
At no point am i trying to be rude or disrespectful for your ideas..
But i kinda feel like you want a totally different game than it already is.
Am i just taking your arguments wrong or do you want more micro abilities in units or something?
the one thing i find amusing in this game is for example TvZ when a terran has sieged up outside zergs base and the only option to keep the base is to use darkswarm and then the terran has to back off and get SV to radiate or reposition or he will loose the units and the attacks been thwarted..
why change something like this ? when you have a spell that can totally change the game course?
|
On May 27 2013 05:11 Izerman wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2013 04:26 Hider wrote:
With plan C we would obviously tone down the strenght of the Viper's abilities, so it could work in that regard. Plan B is the easier said than done (I think its quite unlikely that we figure out a proper way to tweak dark swarm on the viper).
But overall this sounds like a good strategy. I would focus a bit on not making the infested ground feel gimmicky (it shouldn't be a complete "surprise"-tactic. That is kinda why I would want to experiment with a very fast infestor while burrowed. At no point am i trying to be rude or disrespectful for your ideas.. But i kinda feel like you want a totally different game than it already is. Am i just taking your arguments wrong or do you want more micro abilities in units or something? the one thing i find amusing in this game is for example TvZ when a terran has sieged up outside zergs base and the only option to keep the base is to use darkswarm and then the terran has to back off and get SV to radiate or reposition or he will loose the units and the attacks been thwarted.. why change something like this ? when you have a spell that can totally change the game course?
No I want more of what I believe Starbow already is (but there are different opinions on this I realize. Freeproject feels its about being a general...)
I want to create awesome games and I think that if you read my posts over the last two pages you can find examples of what I believe create awesome. But I think you make it more black/white than it is. For instance more micro =! better. It depends on the type of mciro and over my time as active in this forum I think I have discussed multiple times the differences between bad type of micro and good types of micro.
The key in game design, IMO, is to study what creates awesome games and formulate concepts/criterias based on that. Then when you suggest/discuss changes to the game, you should relate how your suggestion fulfills the criterias for a well designed unit.
But in order not to derail this thread further you could send me PM's if you have further questions.
Regarding Dark Swarm specifically, this has been discussed multiple times previously and in the end both Xiph and Dec seems to have concluded that it should be more difficult to land efficiently. I think you may be taking things out of context here.
|
Unit test map "Starbow Tester" Updated!
|
On May 27 2013 05:34 JohnnyZerg wrote:
Unit test map "Starbow Tester" Updated!
Thanks Johnny! <3
|
To summarize the bc argument, WayOfFreedom (and others) don't like the ability explicitly rewarding clicks to damage output.
Hider says that a lot of current mechanics are very similiar to this already, and that it shouldn't be a big step to take. Two examples are sc2 snipe when you have a lot of energy, and splitting marines, and blink stalkers. Both rely on apm, with results corresponding pretty closely to eapm. If you can click faster (with reasonable accuracy), you can reliable get higher results, even higher than any human could realistically achieve.
I do like the tension the ability provides, which is similiar to watching hunter seeker missiles and medivacs.
@Area damage BC ability idea. The flavour is nice and familiar, but Hider is right. It makes area control defensively too strong, and on the flip side, its still very vulnerable to being sniped by stalkers. I don't think it would be that great in practice... The part I like the most about it is bombarding an expo, like destroying a probe line.
I had some old ideas for the BC:
Battlecruiser now are 8 supply. Battlecruiser now can hold up to two of the four possible upgrades. The two possible offensive ones are plasma (ground) bombardment and yamato cannon, and the two possible defense ones are shield (absorbs 300 damage when activated) or warp drive (5 second charge up, moves the bc at speed 20 towards location. The bc is invincible when in transit. cooldown 30 seconds, energy cost 50).
Each option needs to be installed after the battlecruiser is created. The battlecruiser must dock with the starport. The options take 25 seconds to install, and cost 50/50 each. A battlecruiser can replace its options by surviving and returning to dock with with the starport.
I think a short-lasting shield could make the battlecruiser better against stalker snipes. Having individually upgraded battlecruisers rewards strategy (you can fly the bcs with defensive options in front), but it takes more baby sitting to manage the different hotkeys and ships. Each ability has an impact though.
@feedback missile Again, I don't think it should be total drain. Having it do 60 damage + 60 feedback damage, for example, would better.
|
On May 27 2013 07:39 Chronopolis wrote:To summarize the bc argument, WayOfFreedom (and others) don't like the ability explicitly rewarding clicks to damage output. Hider says that a lot of current mechanics are very similiar to this already, and that it shouldn't be a big step to take. Two examples are sc2 snipe when you have a lot of energy, and splitting marines, and blink stalkers. Both rely on apm, with results corresponding pretty closely to eapm. If you can click faster (with reasonable accuracy), you can reliable get higher results, even higher than any human could realistically achieve. I do like the tension the ability provides, which is similiar to watching hunter seeker missiles and medivacs. @Area damage BC ability idea. The flavour is nice and familiar, but Hider is right. It makes area control defensively too strong, and on the flip side, its still very vulnerable to being sniped by stalkers. I don't think it would be that great in practice... The part I like the most about it is bombarding an expo, like destroying a probe line. I had some old ideas for the BC: Show nested quote +Battlecruiser now are 8 supply. Battlecruiser now can hold up to two of the four possible upgrades. The two possible offensive ones are plasma (ground) bombardment and yamato cannon, and the two possible defense ones are shield (absorbs 300 damage when activated) or warp drive (5 second charge up, moves the bc at speed 20 towards location. The bc is invincible when in transit. cooldown 30 seconds, energy cost 50).
Each option needs to be installed after the battlecruiser is created. The battlecruiser must dock with the starport. The options take 25 seconds to install, and cost 50/50 each. A battlecruiser can replace its options by surviving and returning to dock with with the starport. I think a short-lasting shield could make the battlecruiser better against stalker snipes. Having individually upgraded battlecruisers rewards strategy (you can fly the bcs with defensive options in front), but it takes more baby sitting to manage the different hotkeys and ships. Each ability has an impact though. @feedback missile Again, I don't think it should be total drain. Having it do 60 damage + 60 feedback damage, for example, would better.
I think my point wasn't actually that a strong defensive BC wasn't bad in it iself. But it is something we should consider/discuss whether that actually will create better games. Regarding your suggestions I would like to see your further explain what each upgrade does. I don't quite get it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
