[A] Starbow - Page 326

On July 12 2013 04:28 Tppz! wrote:
would be cool if the caster wouldnt eat popcorn. it makes horrible eating noises noone wants to hear. if you are hungry pls turn off your mic -.- unbearable to watch. sorry

On July 12 2013 06:07 SmileZerg wrote:
I think Dragoons would suffice, but honestly after some of the games I saw today I don't see a real need for the Immortal either, I think we need to respec Stalkers to be anti-armor with low DPS vs Light units. The entire Zergling/Zealot/Lurker/Stalker dynamic is completely trashed with this bonus damage configuration, and (as far as I'm aware) the only reason we have it like this is to try and give the Immortal space to be the anti-armored unit... but again, why?

The arguments I've seen previously are that the Stalker was too good all-around for the amount of mobility it has, but if that's the case just smack its DPS with the nerf bat a little bit. I don't think we need to overspecialize it.

Like, Zerg is too strong: change larva spawn rate
Zerg can take three bases too fast versus Protoss: change minerals in a way such that 3base zerg doesn't pay off anymore
Terran can't go bio vs Protoss and Terran: introduce marauder
W add an immortal as a core combat unit so that Protoss has a better early/midgame army. And then buff the stalker vs everything that the immortal was originally added.

Seriously, here is a list of units that noone has a real clue about. Why not get those right, before changing the game over and over again and you have to figure out how to use your 3basic units again? Or what your basic units even are?

List:
Immortal - why is this in the game? Is there any unit that you would need it against? We don't want it to counter tanks and against ultras there are enough options in the protoss arsenal. It isn't even that great vs ultras and can't be, because you can mass produce immortals in ways were if it really hardcountered the ultra, ultras wouldn't even be viable at all.
Sentinel - so, apart from the small bug that nullwards attack buildings, is this unit now finalized?
Scout - haven't seen one, apart from one that I built on accident once
Carrier - yeah...
Arbiter - Ok, it is really good vs tanklines. Anything else? Anybody ever used them against Zerg? Any other purpose it fills apart from balancing out PvT groundplay in the lategame?
Archon - seriously guys, how much do you use archons? You see them once in a while. But has anybody ever really done something with them apart from "it's lategame and those are easy to get, why not?".
Banshee - what's it's purpose? Early harass unit? Yeah, sometimes someone builds one or two. Then they get killed and that's it.
BC - ?
Viper - who uses them?
Defiler - I'd like to say I use them, but I don't. Why? Because I'm too busy figuring out whether I am able to kill my opponent with basic units, or not.
Devourer - I guess they'd be pretty important if my opponent ever went BC or Carrier
Guardian - I have thought about using them once or twice. But then again, I'm still busy figuring out when I can even combat my opponent open field. I don't feel like I have enough experience to find out when I need to go for a siege weapon or when I even can afford to do so. Not even going to start about whether a guardian would even be useful against a standard enemy composition.

On July 12 2013 07:46 Big J wrote:
Sorry Hider, you talk about Nuances of gameplay while raping everybody with pure macro with whatever you do and the losses you take are basically all just your own mistakes.
You try bio in TvT, play against an opponent who is supergreedy first but don't punish him. Then he turtles but you don't outexpand him and instead build irratiate (why the fuck did you get that?), 4 dropships after seeing that you can't drop him and then head bang into a mine+tank army. That's how your losses look like. If you don't make like each and every of those mistakes, you win every game.
This one TvT I have seen from you was basically nothing but adapting SC2 style bio vs mech play as well as possible (yeah, dropships and medics instead of medivacs). At that point you haven't played Starbow, you just tried if WoL/HotS works in Starbow.

Why the Immortal and Marauder were added you ask? Because... some people believe that certain gameplay will be achieved through them and it will be much easier to achieve that kind of gameplay with new units, instead of balancing the old ones. Well, all I know is that you are not happy with the immortal/marauder stats. So instead of balancing the old stuff, we now get stuck on figuring out and balancing the new stuff.

In PvZ this will make zealot + stalker a lot more cost efficient vs zerg lair units if they have the right unit composition and control. Stalkers are slightly less beefy (10 less HP), but deal more damage to hydras, lings and mutas (2 more to hydras, 4 more to lings and 2 more to mutas). Zealots will be more tanky once the upgrade is researched which allows it to work better as a tank. The immortal will have two roles in the matchup; 1) Target firing lurkers and 2) vs Ultralisks.

Overall this will make it less of a neccesity for protoss to rush to reavers in the midgame. At the same time it will reward a bit more micro and diverse unit composition.

In TvP bio heavy, it will grant the terran player "natural map control". Since the protoss want a mix between zealots, stalkers and immortals (and possibly sentinels), instead of just pure blink stalkers, his overall army will be much less mobile, and he can't just kite all day long against the terran player. Further, against dropplays he can't just blink 4-5 stalkers and deny the drop. Instead he will need to be careful about battling maurauders with stalkers and instead use stalkers to target the dropships while using the zealot or immortal to assist in the proces.

The addition of the maurauder will make pure bio viable in the midgame, but that is mostly in terms of an increased mobility advantage. We won't see the Sc2 type of gameplay where the protoss gateway army is laughable wihtout AOE support. Instead, protoss gateway will be farily even in terms of cost efficiency against the terran player in the early midgame and too a large extent the outcome will depend on micro.
Regardless of who wins, I expect bio vs protoss (in the midgame) to be very fast paced and actionpacked. Later on in the game though, terran will and should have to transition to tanks which adds the whole positional element to the game.

In TvP mech, I believe the effect will be smaller (but still improve gameplay), and other changes are needed. Nevertheless, you will likely need more immortals than stalkers vs mech (to kill tanks), and you'll use stalkers to kill off vulturues. This will decrease the overall efficiency of the "surround-effect" for protoss, as immortals are worse at "preventing" than stalkers.

On July 12 2013 08:02 Hider wrote:


What does that have to do with anything? Besides the irradiate thing, most of the thing you addresses feels like "armchair"-proing.
But, the point is this - Its not about winning or losing, it's about making rewarding fun playstyles. What Alpha did vs me, was IMO very intelligent, and I would have done similar things in his shoes (assuming I wanted to optimize my winning probabilities). But it just rewards players for turtling for 20 minutes. At this point (if you have read just some of my previous posts) you should have known have much I dislike those types of games.

In PvZ this will make zealot + stalker a lot more cost efficient vs zerg lair units if they have the right unit composition and control. Stalkers are slightly less beefy (10 less HP), but deal more damage to hydras, lings and mutas (2 more to hydras, 4 more to lings and 2 more to mutas). Zealots will be more tanky once the upgrade is researched which allows it to work better as a tank. The immortal will have two roles in the matchup; 1) Target firing lurkers and 2) vs Ultralisks.

Overall this will make it less of a neccesity for protoss to rush to reavers in the midgame. At the same time it will reward a bit more micro and diverse unit composition.

In TvP bio heavy, it will grant the terran player "natural map control". Since the protoss want a mix between zealots, stalkers and immortals (and possibly sentinels), instead of just pure blink stalkers, his overall army will be much less mobile, and he can't just kite all day long against the terran player. Further, against dropplays he can't just blink 4-5 stalkers and deny the drop. Instead he will need to be careful about battling maurauders with stalkers and instead use stalkers to target the dropships while using the zealot or immortal to assist in the proces.

The addition of the maurauder will make pure bio viable in the midgame, but that is mostly in terms of an increased mobility advantage. We won't see the Sc2 type of gameplay where the protoss gateway army is laughable wihtout AOE support. Instead, protoss gateway will be farily even in terms of cost efficiency against the terran player in the early midgame and too a large extent the outcome will depend on micro.
Regardless of who wins, I expect bio vs protoss (in the midgame) to be very fast paced and actionpacked. Later on in the game though, terran will and should have to transition to tanks which adds the whole positional element to the game.

In TvP mech, I believe the effect will be smaller (but still improve gameplay), and other changes are needed. Nevertheless, you will likely need more immortals than stalkers vs mech (to kill tanks), and you'll use stalkers to kill off vulturues. This will decrease the overall efficiency of the "surround-effect" for protoss, as immortals are worse at "preventing" than stalkers.

On July 12 2013 08:17 Big J wrote:


Of course it's armchair proing. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. That even the best of us is still playing pretty badly, especially after only a few days of having the marauder in the toolbox.
You say you don't want that turretrings are viable? Then I have to ask, are they viable if you mass expand? Can you afford them if you are not allowed to open with 3base mech vs 3base bio?
Yes, I don't want to see this kind of gameplay either, but what you do is that you jump to the conclusion that this viable because someone used it and won. For all I know 10turrets cost 1000k minerals - which is a full mining base you could get ahead if he invests into turrets for nothing.

So, has this stuff become true "just from adding the immortal/marauder"? Or are we back to the start again, where we actually have to balance the stuff right to work out as intented? Something that would could have done with any of the units on the list I posted.

On July 12 2013 10:45 AndreiDaGiant wrote:
i cant find this on the hots arcade NA is it there?

On July 12 2013 06:48 decemberscalm wrote:

Busted!

On July 12 2013 08:19 Hider wrote:


The point is this; bio isn't viable the "correct" way. When I make that statement I thinking in terms of a game designer, not as a player.
(as a player I still don't think it is anywhere near close to viable, but it would indeed require mroe testing and more refinemint of builds. Nevertheless, that's not the point).



Please note - Nothing has come true yet. That's a matter of tweaking the stats, but I would argue that the fundamentls are in place now. This is a proces - Not a done product. Blizzard has alpha testing before they releases big stuff - Please see this as alpha/early beta testing rather than something that can yet compete with HOTS.
Regarding other options than introducing immortal + maurader; Kabel actually tried to respond to that type of criticsm (in advance) through a post with a new suggestion of stats to the stalker. Please go back a couple of pages and read the discussion.

On July 12 2013 19:10 Izerman wrote:


What i get from your posts you want to be able to drop the opponent when he has a superior army to widdle him down to a point you can defeat his army and win. period? Turrets shouldnt be able to shoot down a dropships with 4shots?

since we keep getting into this "thats not the point" do me a favor and explain your thoughts.
obviously i (maybe others) dont think in the same way you do about the drops.

on the surface you come off as "i should be able to drop anywhere and do dmg" anytime in the game.
Im asking nicely, and please dont take offence, im a trollish personality sometimes.

/

On July 12 2013 20:21 Big J wrote:
Well, this is the way I believe Bio vs Mech should work in my opinion:

Phase 1: Bio takes mapcontrol and tries to prevent Vultures from doing runbies and forces minefields at home.
Phase 2: Bio reacts to a defensive mechplayer with greed (at least stay 1base up on the mech player), a greedy mechplayer with offense (drops, banshees or frontal pushes) and an offensive mechplayer with defense (siege tanks) or counterattacks (drops, runbies). While a Mechplayer should try to punish a greedy Bio player and play defensive against an aggressive Bio player, while trying to get a picture of the game with vultures (and maybe banshees).
Phase 3: If Bio hasn't done so it transitions into biomech (or maybe bioair), while Mech tries to force frontal engagements and siege up Bio's expansions.

But that stuff needs figuring, whether it is viable or not. Meanwhile, nerfing turretrings down to the point where being in the defense for the whole game by default because half your army runs around at home to defend (and if you can't you lose then and there) just means that a bio player can now do both: play aggressive and greedy. It's ZvP "whack-a-mole" gameplay all over again.