EPTMacro is probably also the reason zerg seems so easy as larva injects and creep spreading is less important than it is in Sc2 (as zerg is the aggressor in Starbow more often than the defender which makes creep spread less of a benefit).
[A] Starbow - Page 335
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
Macro is probably also the reason zerg seems so easy as larva injects and creep spreading is less important than it is in Sc2 (as zerg is the aggressor in Starbow more often than the defender which makes creep spread less of a benefit). | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
My view on the current topics: Promoting Starbow + Show Spoiler + I still think we must wait a few more weeks. Many good arguments have been presented so far for that stance. Now we just need to have patience, continue to play test Starbow and discuss it, so we find optimal solutions for the remaining problems. Warp gate /Gateway + Show Spoiler + Alternative changes: 1.) - Gateway produces Zealot, Stalker, Immortal, DT and HT - Warp gate can warp in Zealot, Stalker, DT and HT! (Everything except Immortal.) 2.) - Gateway/Warp gate produces Zealot, Stalker, DT and HT. - Robotic facility produces Immortal, Observer, Warp Prism and Reaver - Stargate produces Corsair, Scout, Sentinel, Carrier, Arbiter If number 2 is implemented, what can we do with Warp gate/Gateway mechanic? Shall it be a disadvantage to Warp gates at all? (Earlier I had 10 seconds slower production to Warp gates. The current downside is Immortals/HT not being warpable) Shall the Warp gate upgrade be more mid/late game? Each Warp gates costs an amount of minerals/gas to upgrade? Immortal/Marauder + Show Spoiler + Many micro tricks and suggestions have been posted and PMed to me, regarding how to make the Immortal and Marauder more interesting to control, play against, use, watch others use, increase skill level etc. I think the purpose of adding extra stuff to the Immortal/Marauder is to make them more useful. A fancy and fun unit who serves no purpose in the game will still remain unused. What is the state of the two units? - Immortal sees play and is decently useful in all match-ups. (Maybe not so much in PvZ. Correct me if I am wrong.) Whether or not the unit is necessary is still debatble, since it kinda overlaps with Archon?. (As Solid points out.) - The Marauder seems quite redundant and unnecessary in all match-ups? (It is hard countered by Spider mines + Tanks, cost inefficient vs Protoss Gateway units + Reavers, cost inefficient vs almost all Zerg units, compared to the Marine.) What improvements can we do to make these units serve a purpose and become useful in preferably all match-ups, and contribute to a more varied and exciting game? More about the Immortal/Marauder + Show Spoiler + I added these two units, after much doubt, as two extra tools to use for the balance, and to create a more varied and fun gameplay. Two more pieces in the game we can shape and manipulate, in order to reach a better state of the game. It is not easily done, and might require some more time. Maybe would Starbow turned out good even without these two units. (As many of you predict.) I guess I just did not trust the old content well enough. Since I now have added these two units, I will continue to use them in the game as tools for dynamics, balance etc. If it later on, after a lot of work in vain, turns out that this was the wrong direction for the game, and stuff has just gotten worse, the units are easily removeable. Please continue to explore and discuss how we can use these units to make the game better. I will get a patch up today around 19-20.00 CET, with mainly bug fixes, and some minor balance changes. (I will post what I have in mind, so you can discuss it and come with better suggestions.) | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
Suggestion: Please keep immortals at gateway. I think there is more early-game options available for protoss this was (e.g.: early bust vs greedy terran opening). How about letting each warp gate be able to warp in ALL units, but have a mineral / gas(?) cost for each gateway morphed into WG and maybe even a 5 sec longer cooldown for all units? Then the amulet upgrade should probably be removed again. I also think letting all units BUT the immortal be warped in with the 10 sec cooldown could work. (Almost like it is now) Marauder: Let's just remove them ? I would love to try a patch where we have immortals, but not mauraders. Let marines start with the range and give reapers the G-4 mines (they are not like spider mines...) upgrade (and perhaps remove the splash upgrade). How is Ghost atm? Maybe buff them even more (in terms of spells, no necessarily dmg), I think Chrono had some nice suggestions, or have they been implemented? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 20 2013 20:28 Xiphias wrote: Marauder: Let's just remove them ? I would love to try a patch where we have immortals, but not mauraders. Let marines start with the range and give reapers the G-4 mines (they are not like spider mines...) upgrade (and perhaps remove the splash upgrade). How is Ghost atm? Maybe buff them even more (in terms of spells, no necessarily dmg), I think Chrono had some nice suggestions, or have they been implemented? If it is not the intention that terran should be able to open bio, then the marine need some ridicilous compensation buff to be worth it. Ghosts or reapers really doesn't matter here as they are more of a post 15 minute type of unit.But when that is aid, the problem with bio in TvP lies in production. It is too mineral expensive and terran in Sbow has a much much lower mineral income than in Sc2 (maps are also a problem here). Bio will always be an inferior choice to mech if it doesn't have "natural map control" in the early midgame and a higher production than the protoss opponent. Further, bio will always be a deathball'ish army if the counter to it consists of heavy blink stalker play (since opponent has mobility advantage). The presense of the maurauder rewards protoss's for adding immortals into the mix which creates a more interesting game. So bascially - marines either need a huge compensation buff vs armored units (either directly or indirectly through the medi) or the maurauder should stay in the game, assuming a bio opening should be viable. But that would only encourage heavy zealot play, which is even less interesting than a fair mix between immortals, zealots and stalkers (thats my personal preference at least). So how can we make bio (without the maurauder) have these following characteristica; - Natural map control at the 10-15 minute mark. - Less cost efficient in battles - Very mobile - Reward the opponent for getting immortals rather than pure zealot with a few stalkers. I honestly don't see it, and that's why I believe the maurauder is the best solution in terms of game dynamic. Please let there be a disadvantage in getting warp-gates. The 10 sec longer cooldown has been one of the greatest features of this game compared to normal SC2. It does not have to be a time disadvantage, but it should definitely be a disadvantage. I see some players trying to skip immortals completely now since they other units carry no disadvantage atm which is very unfortunate since we want the new units to be used. Suggestion: Please keep immortals at gateway. I think there is more early-game options available for protoss this was (e.g.: early bust vs greedy terran opening). How about letting each warp gate be able to warp in ALL units, but have a mineral / gas(?) cost for each gateway morphed into WG and maybe even a 5 sec longer cooldown for all units? Then the amulet upgrade should probably be removed again. I also think letting all units BUT the immortal be warped in with the 10 sec cooldown could work. (Almost like it is now) As you point out, a disadvantage for warpgate through production speed is IMO the most simple/clean solution, and I think at this point everyone who has played protoss in Sbow agrees that everyting should be warp-inable. The decision on whether you want to use warpgate and gateway -or mix them, should be a voluntary one. Forcing players to use one or the other (by not letting them build the immortal at warp gate) isn't the correct one IMO. Immortal at gateway with super early warp prism actually offers a lot of early aggression opportunities vs terarn that haven't been completely discovered yet, but too some extent I also think it is too OP. What exactly can a terran player do vs an 8 minute immortal drop? And then 40 seconds later, I can have another two immortals, or maybe just 4 stalkers in a warp prism. We must be really careful about not making early drop play too strong vs terran as they (without the mule) really suffer in terms of early game production, and what is inteded as light harass (with low investment) can straight up kill them. Immortal at robo (even with lower BT) would delay early warp prism harass too a time where it becomes more "fair". | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
On July 20 2013 19:54 Kabel wrote: Home again. Two pages of discussion since yesterday ^^ My view on the current topics: Promoting Starbow I still think we must wait a few more weeks. Many good arguments have been presented so far for that stance. Now we just need to have patience, continue to play test Starbow and discuss it, so we find optimal solutions for the remaining problems. Warp gate /Gateway Alternative changes: 1.) - Gateway produces Zealot, Stalker, Immortal, DT and HT - Warp gate can warp in Zealot, Stalker, DT and HT! (Everything except Immortal.) What do you think of Warp gate can warp in Zealot, Stalker, DT and Archon (100/300), and let gateway produce ht and immortal. In this way warpgate technology has available the soft counter, while gateway technology has available the hard counter. Zeloat can become interesting with this change:+ Show Spoiler + The permanent speed bonus is replaced by this ability: when activated, increased speed for 8-10 sec, reusable after a cooldown (maybe 20sec). Currently zealot has 50 shield and 100 hp. When that this ability is activated, zealot shield are restored. Userfull for make as tank, or escape G4-Charge can be interesting on ghost. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
| ||
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Denmark697 Posts
Regarding gateways/warpgates, i had an idea. Why not increase the warp in time for some of the more advanced units? or even better, make warp gates have dynamic warp in times for each unit Make Zealots warp in in 4 seconds, Stalkers in 6, DT's in 7, HT's in 10 and Immortals in 12. This will keep it tougher to reinforce with the big power units but easier with the faster counter attack units. I would also join in the "increased cooldown for warpgates" club. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 21 2013 00:15 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: @Hider: If you remove the "bio" tag to this type of gameplay, how come you don't simply use siege tanks instead. The do all the things the Marauder does atm, and are more usefull later on. Regarding gateways/warpgates, i had an idea. Why not increase the warp in time for some of the more advanced units? or even better, make warp gates have dynamic warp in times for each unit Make Zealots warp in in 4 seconds, Stalkers in 6, DT's in 7, HT's in 10 and Immortals in 12. This will keep it tougher to reinforce with the big power units but easier with the faster counter attack units. I would also join in the "increased cooldown for warpgates" club. Tanks works completley different than bio As I described in my initial long post, tanks do a great job of staling the game in the midgame. All kind of attacks are allinsh (as you commit) and usually your better off defending on 2-3 bases which is very easy. This makes it a boring unit in terms of providing interesting gameplay once players are on 2-3 bases. It is a great and very interesting unit late game (4+bases), but bio is often times more multitaskbased and actionpacked pre 15 minute mark. Also it is important to note that it doesn't grant map control, like bio does. Map control is a neccesity in terms of providing strong actionplay when the opponent just has 2-3 bases, because defending becomes too easy if there is no mobile main army threat out on the map. With the introduction of the immortal, we have actually kinda "solved" the staling issue of the tanks. The protoss player is now rewarded for taking expos as quickly as possbile in the early midgame as he needs a stronger economy to support constant army trading once the mech terran takes a 4th base. The terran player on the other hand is incentivied to harass the protoss player in this protoss so he can't just get 60-70 probes on 4 bases at the 12th minute mark or so. Previously the protoss could kinda do that as terrans harass options were awfull given the mobile superiority of blink stalkers. However with the neccesity of having the immortal into the mix, it becomes a lot more challenging for the protoss player to secure expos quickly while defending efficiently. Thus, we now have set up the fundamentals for an actionpacked and multitask based game in TvP mech. So far I haven't seen anything that makes me believe that the metagame isn't going in this direction (once it gets solved). But making bio viable early and midgame (the "correct way) would make the game even better as it adds a new element to Starbow. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 20 2013 19:54 Kabel wrote: Warp gate /Gateway + Show Spoiler + Alternative changes: 1.) - Gateway produces Zealot, Stalker, Immortal, DT and HT - Warp gate can warp in Zealot, Stalker, DT and HT! (Everything except Immortal.) 2.) - Gateway/Warp gate produces Zealot, Stalker, DT and HT. - Robotic facility produces Immortal, Observer, Warp Prism and Reaver - Stargate produces Corsair, Scout, Sentinel, Carrier, Arbiter If number 2 is implemented, what can we do with Warp gate/Gateway mechanic? Shall it be a disadvantage to Warp gates at all? (Earlier I had 10 seconds slower production to Warp gates. The current downside is Immortals/HT not being warpable) Shall the Warp gate upgrade be more mid/late game? Each Warp gates costs an amount of minerals/gas to upgrade? What about this one: - Gateway produces Zealot, Stalker, Immortal, DT and HT - Warpgate can warp in Zealot, Stalker, DT! (Everything except Immortal and HT) - Warpgate produces Immortal and HT (queing halts all cooldowns; optional: units cannot be warped in while an Immortal/HT is being queued) Why? easily understandable - everything is always in warpgate mode no switching back/forth minimaxing the heavy hitters cannot be warped in (HT upgrade can be put into the game - no more back and forth balancing of storm needed. Amulett+Storm makes templar pretty strong) It would be similar to the effect you try to achieve now (no warpable immortals, no real drawbacks from warpgate else), but less weird to play with than switching back/forth or mixing warpgates/gateways. - The Marauder seems quite redundant and unnecessary in all match-ups? (It is hard countered by Spider mines + Tanks, cost inefficient vs Protoss Gateway units + Reavers, cost inefficient vs almost all Zerg units, compared to the Marine.) Well, costinefficiency across the board against all other armies basically just means that it is just underpowered or not meant to be a real engagement unit. As it is meant to be a real engagement unit, it means the marauder is underpowered. Now, the problem I always see with "just adding" the marauder is the following: The marine is a beast against everything that does not have splash or high armor or is a designated light unit killer. The marauder cannot really be better against any unit that does not fall under those categories, because then it would just be too good (the marine is already very good against those units). I.e., marines are good against zerglings, hydralisks, marines, medics, air combat units, zealots, immortals and all forms of utility units. What's left is some odd mix of units that don't really share an attribute where you can say "this is what the marauder should be good against to complement the marine and make bio more viable overall". Like, how do you make the marauder good/useful against banelings, reavers, tanks, lurkers, vultures, stalkers, archons, ultralisks, defilers, science vessels, Templar? (while not overkilling what the marine is already good against) Especially if we constrict this to something like "it should not be a real counter to tanks, reavers, lurkers, templar". I believe the answer to really make the marine/marauder work is to have a very clear focus on the units roles. Like, the marauder really does more damage per second vs all armored than the marine (which right now it doesn't; it just survives a little longer than the marine) But I believe that this means the marine needs a tiny reform, which I actually don't think is that complicated. Like, marine damage changed from 6 vs all to 5+ 2vs light/medium. This really forces a Terran to produce marauders when the opponent goes armored. On the flipside, the marine can really complement the (buffed) marauder better vs zerglings/zealots/vultures etc. (and in the same light, the marauder could get a GtA attack if needed) But of course, doctoring around with basic units might introduce some problems, though I can't really see them too much right now, as the starting relations stay similar. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
if you guys haven't played any c&c games, my personal favorite Tiberian Sun is available as freeware, so you can test out how the unit relationships work - http://www.joystiq.com/game/command-conquer-tiberian-sun/download/command-and-conquer-tiberian-sun-free-full-game/ it's a slightly radical change, but i feel like it's worth trying. it'd make the marauder more interesting, at the very least. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 21 2013 02:10 Fishgle wrote: I agree with big j on marines. If we keep the marauder, we should make marines do less damage to armored/heavy units and let that be the marauder's role. I remember someone a while back posted that you should make Bio like C&C infantry. marines = riflemen, marauders = rocket infantry. The biggest difference is marauders would do something like 2+18 to armored, with an even slower attack, and larger attack range, and maybe an AA attack, but be very cheap (50/25, 1 supply) so that you're not punished as hard for making a somewhat niche unit. And we can make marines do 3+4 to light. if you guys haven't played any c&c games, my personal favorite Tiberian Sun is available as freeware, so you can test out how the unit relationships work - http://www.joystiq.com/game/command-conquer-tiberian-sun/download/command-and-conquer-tiberian-sun-free-full-game/ it's a slightly radical change, but i feel like it's worth trying. it'd make the marauder more interesting, at the very least. Building a bit upon that idea, think something like this could work for the maurauder; - Higher per shot damage, but slower attack speed than current model. - Similar DPS vs armored (as it has currently) - A bit lower DPS vs light/normal - 7 range - 90 HP or so (shouldn't be a glass cannon, but no need to be particularly buffy). This unit will have the folllowing effect on the gameplay - Grant map control for terran as it does a good job of dealing with stalkers, and it is still very mobile. - Rewards protoss's for getting zealots and immortals, rather than just mass stalkers. - Simple and intuitive. - Less cost effective in a straigt up fight - esp if you just amove your bio units. - Due to having a slower attack, you can't kite with them as easily if you have them in the same control group as marines - Thus you need to control marines and maurauders seperately. Chances are that you will need two control groups. - Due to its high DPS vs armored and relatively low HP, it is now a very attractive unit to target fire with immortals (if possible) - and now it is also more practical since marines and maurauders will be in seperate control groups, those they will be less spread among each other. - Harder to learn to use than most other T1 units. Not sure whether this is a good or bad thing (?). | ||
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Denmark697 Posts
Now your new suggestion for the marauder might work a lot better. As I have been saying, the main problem with the design of marauders are the fact that they have no weak stats (especially defensive), and need to get one of them nerfed. Nerfing HP seems against the unit identity, but with a slight range buff it can actually work. Another reason this idea is great is because the anti armored role of marauders makes perfect sense with this setup - they fire long range armor piercing rounds. I think it might need to be even lower hp (like 60-80), but with the high cost compared to marines it might be fine anyways. Also, I think the kite potential is a bit problematic. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 21 2013 03:11 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: @Hider, I think you misunderstood my post. I was referring to unsieged tanks, not tanks with siege mode. When you disregard the fact that one is from the barraks and one is from factory, these two units are practically identical (well marauder is more hp for cost), and that is why the current marauder adds nothing at all to terran. Now your new suggestion for the marauder might work a lot better. As I have been saying, the main problem with the design of marauders are the fact that they have no weak stats (especially defensive), and need to get one of them nerfed. Nerfing HP seems against the unit identity, but with a slight range buff it can actually work. Another reason this idea is great is because the anti armored role of marauders makes perfect sense with this setup - they fire long range armor piercing rounds. I think it might need to be even lower hp (like 60-80), but with the high cost compared to marines it might be fine anyways. Also, I think the kite potential is a bit problematic. Tanks without siege mode are bad and less mobile than stimmed mauraders. | ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
On July 18 2013 22:12 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: One of the problems with spider mines porting to SC2 engine is that most units have gotten much better attack points (delay before initial attack). Compare the extemely clumsy dragoon that took forever to fire a shot at a detected mine with the almost instant stalker fire (hydras could clear mines in BW because of their good attack point) This fast attack point also gives some poorer interactions from units like zealots and zerglings. It could be fun to try how units interact with eachother if we introduce arbitrary attack point delays to see how they would become more clumsy and BWish. I'm not suggesting that we do this for all units to buff spider mines or for the sake of "BW had it", but it could be interesting to do for units that are supposed to be a bit more sluggish, or have a harder time fighting on the move. i'd like to bring back this post. I thought it was something very important, and might be a good addition to the marauder. That is, make the maruader's attack have a delay between the attack command and the projectile animation. It makes sense that such a huge cannon doesn't fire instantly, and it'd make their micro interesting, and it removes the possibility of easy kiting. we could even reintroduce concussive shells if we do this. | ||
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On July 21 2013 02:42 Hider wrote: Building a bit upon that idea, think something like this could work for the maurauder; - Higher per shot damage, but slower attack speed than current model. - Similar DPS vs armored (as it has currently) - A bit lower DPS vs light/normal - 7 range - 90 HP or so (shouldn't be a glass cannon, but no need to be particularly buffy). This unit will have the folllowing effect on the gameplay - Grant map control for terran as it does a good job of dealing with stalkers from a low range, and it is still very mobile. - Rewards protoss's for getting zealots and immortals, rather than just mass stalkers. - Simply and intuitive. - Less cost effective in a straigt up fight - esp if you just amove your bio units. - Due to having a slower attack, you can't kite with them as easily if you have them in the same control group as marines - Thus you need to control marines and maurauders seperately. Chances are that you will need two control groups. - Due to its high DPS vs armored and relatively low HP, it is now a very attractive unit to target fire with immortals (if possible) - and now it is also more practical since marines and maurauders will be in seperate control groups, those they will be less spread among each other. - Harder to learn to use than most other T1 units. Not sure whether this is a good or bad thing (?). Marauder now I can be more effective for oneshot armored units (reaver/tank). Medic shield also plays an important role. Damage can be 10 vs light +1 from upgrade 15 vs "medium" +1.5 from upgrade 20 vs armored + 2 from upgrade with a cooldown of 2 sec (as sc2 roach). | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9390 Posts
On July 21 2013 03:39 JohnnyZerg wrote: I like this. Marauder now I can be more effective for oneshot armored units (reaver/tank). Medic shield also plays an important role. Yeh definitely. Matrix and maurauders can now snipe a couple of tanks with some good micro. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
Again the question remains, why not just use tanks? | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
This mod aims for something much more bold than what I'm about to mention and I don't wish you to think that I'm in any way comparing the merits of the two. Bx Monobattles only overthrew the original monobattles because it was streamed and played by Blizzard employees, TotalBiscuit, Day[9], Husky, Grubby, IdrA and others. The audience watched that and said "Wow, they're playing something. I want to try that." The fact that I made huge improvements to a cute, popular little sidegame didn't matter. New features, more constant bug fixes, none of that mattered. All that mattered was popular exposure. If you want Starbow played by the masses you're going to want to broker a deal with someone high up who finds that they like it. If it's played by the masses, organizations might start doing cool stuff, like hosting for-fun tournaments with small prize pools. The other route (creating the perfect game, so perfect that even the greatest SC2 players could not refuse to play it) is unlikely. In that regard, you'd be competing with Blizzard and Starcraft 2 and that's a tough fight. Aim to make a good game, not a perfect one, and get it out there. Sorry for butting in, I just saw LaLush sharing his experiences and thought I'd share my own. I think it'd be kinda cool if one of these SC2++ mods made it to the finish line. | ||
| ||
