|
On July 21 2013 15:40 urashimakt wrote:
If you want to get your mod played by an audience beyond those who are contributing to it here you should try to get a personality to like it and to stream it.
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.
You can only get popular personalities to play it if the game is significantly better. Also this game already competes with Sc2 - Monobattles doesn't. Its a huge difference and requires a completely different strategy.
|
ahem... does anyone else notice something funny about these helpful posts?
They are coming from people behind other mods. People who have tried to get get their mod popular and have a large following. I think StarBow might be more recognized than we all think it is - espescially in the custom map community. We really should not underestimate the power of being featured on the top of the front page of the custom maps section for more or less a year without dropping.
I also think we are being too perfectionistic. The game does not have to be better than SC2, it just has to be (more?) fun. The average gamers does not play these mods pecause they are more balanced, or better designed, or more complex. They play them because they want to have fun, and things like monobattles are really fun. As long as we fix the obvious stalemate situations in most matchups, the game will be fun, and people will play it.
|
On July 21 2013 18:47 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
ahem... does anyone else notice something funny about these helpful posts?
They are coming from people behind other mods. People who have tried to get get their mod popular and have a large following. I think StarBow might be more recognized than we all think it is - espescially in the custom map community. We really should not underestimate the power of being featured on the top of the front page of the custom maps section for more or less a year without dropping.
I also think we are being too perfectionistic. The game does not have to be better than SC2, it just has to be (more?) fun. The average gamers does not play these mods pecause they are more balanced, or better designed, or more complex. They play them because they want to have fun, and things like monobattles are really fun. As long as we fix the obvious stalemate situations in most matchups, the game will be fun, and people will play it.
the problem is going to be that there will be huge patches coming, if the game isn't somewhat finished.
That's going to scare people away again. It already scares some of use that have been playing it for a long time now, as it is often hard to keep up with the changes, if you are not playing multiple games every week.
|
@Marauder
+ Show Spoiler +I think the suggested Marauder sounds interesting. Maybe not those exact stats, but something along those lines. A bio unit that is microed/controlled differently compared to Marines, has a more distinct role, less efficient in just A-moving and tearing stuff apart. Simply some more finesse. A slower attack speed with higher burst damage makes each Marauder shot more important. Also makes them worse at just standing still and recieving damage. A unit with fast attack speed and low damage has a constant damage output. A unit with slow attack speed but high damage has "dead seconds" where nothing happens. Thereby it is more rewarding to kite with them, micro them and so on. Further suggestions/improvements would be nice. If we could find something similar for the Immortal, to make it more interesting/micro rewarding etc, that would be nice too. Again the question remains, why not just use tanks? We are at a crossroad: - Many of us think we can balance the game and make it great/fun/exciting etc without the Marauder/Immortal. - Others think we need these two additional units to broaden the gameplay. Both ways are probably correct, and there is no definitive answear. (When do we know if the gameplay is great?) I did however turn left at the crossroad, and since we now walk on this path I want to see how the gameplay can be with those two new units. The only true test is always in the game - how it feels, looks, how players play, what players can do, and what players rather do, what situations emerges in the game. If the Marauder and Tank turns out to be exactly the same, and nothing else is added to the game via the Marauder, then we need to reconsider. A buffed unsieged Tank would probably be enough to make T able to push out vs P etc, but that kinda drags us down into the "narrow and predictable" swamp that some argues PvT always has been in Starbow.
@Urashimakt
+ Show Spoiler +It would ofc be fun to see a lot of people play and enjoy this. I have continued developing this for over a year (with breaks in between) just cause I enjoy it. But to see other people play it and enjoy it too, is a great motivation!
I started this solo and now we are like a small community where a lot of you contribute in a lot of ways:
casting games, updating the unit tester, streaming, hosting tournaments, helping me doing work in the editor, helping me with designing/balancing the game, updating a wiki, making maps for this and of course playing the game! <3
It is really cool to be a part of it. That is also why I am so cautious about promoting this to an even bigger audience. If we say "Hey, come and look at this" here on TL, players might come.. But if the game has no true substance, the player base will fall apart again. Imagine if we reach a player base of 30+ people every day in the chat channel, and we get a ranking system. I can not do huge and radical changes at a point like that.
"Hello everyone, I just removed two units from the game because I have a theory that the game will be even better without them! Oh, and I also reworked two spellcasters completely. Read my huge monster post about it. Gl hf."
I even feel bad when I make larger changes now, cause I know I cause frustration to many of you. But I really want to reach a good game as possible. A point where no further huge patches are needed. (Apart from minor balance changes)
We have already passed the first threshold: Starbow has a community. Something to be a part of. Someone to play vs. Someone to discuss strategies, replays, balance etc with. A thread to write your thoughts and feelings for the game.
A famous personality playing this would sure help to give it exposure. Hosting tournaments, creating threads on other forums, uploading vods etc can also do it. Famous exposure is probably not enough in itself, unless there is substance in the game. Compared to a "fun-map", who is often simple, quick and has a low learning curve. But who knows.
|
The game does not have to be better than SC2, it just has to be (more?) fun
That's basically the same. 
But the target group of Starbow isn't the "average monobattle/arcade game" player. Its those that play Sc2 somewhat seriously, but just isn't satifised with some of the elements, such as;
- Mech being bad (it has a very low skill cap. easy to execute and easy to master).
- Forcefields/collosus
- Protoss being too a-movish, turtlish and too deathballish.
- Zerg being too defensive
Or - its those that want to have some kind of BW nostalagia, but just don't want to fight the AI/system as you kinda did in BW.
Fixing these things aren't particularly hard in them selves. The difficulties lies in fixing those things while maintaing the good aspects of Sc2. But I think we are getting much closer.
|
@Hider, Don't get me wrong, I never suggested that the stricly casual players were our target group. But gamers are at heart the same; we all play to have fun. So far the mod has most of the elements to make the more competetive players have fun. It promotes skill and good decisions, makes the player feel that he has options of strategy and there is starting to be a real sense of transperance to what causes losses.
I do absolutely agree that we need to decide on a final set of units before promoting it. But once that is in place, whats really stopping us?
@Kabel, why not take the dragoon as an example of a basic unit that was fun to use? As long as the immortal is "clumsy", but really great when you control them to overcome this, I think were golden as far as this unit goes. A delayed attack point or a larger hitbox will make them clumsy but with real power when used right. But please give them a tad more speed. They really need it now that they don't have hardened shields, and it will make them so much more natural to use with Zealots and Stalkers.
|
On July 21 2013 19:02 Kabel wrote:
Again the question remains, why not just use tanks?
Simple answer: Because the tank is produced out of the factory. We want BIO to be more viable. We do not, ofc, want both the marauder and the tank to be too similar, but they can be quite similar with too much trouble because they are at different tech levels and interact with a different set of core units.
I don't think we should be too concerned with the marauder being too similar to the tank (although it is not desirable), but rather concern ourselves with making it viable in a bio composition.
|
ok, i just went to the unit tester and played around with the marine and the marauder and some relations to P/T units (amove battles). Right now I dont see much sense in using marauders in their current incarnation! 4tanks vs 10marauders has the exact same outcome as 4tanks vs 20marines (tanks win slightly).
Marines vs Stalkers is nearly as much of a stomp as marauders vs stalkers.
Marines are better vs immortals than marauders. same for zealots.
And then I found what I believe is the coreproblem of TvT bio. Vultures rape marines. and though they lose to marauders, it takes them an eternity to die. I always assumed vultures would lose to basically anything when unmicroed, but they are a brutal marinecounter.
Again I want to emphasize that the marauder has a hard time complementing the marine and vis-verca, as the marine already has more damageoutput against the armored tag than the marauder. meanwhile the marine cannot keep nonarmored units from destroying bio unless your bio fields a costequivalent of marines to his nonarmored units to begin with. It always comes down to playing marineheavy against Z/P (or a heavy zealot, zergling, hydralisk?, mutalisk, air switch will kill you - you cant really pump marines reactively well enough against a such). and against T, vultures are too good against both and probably tanks slightly too good against marauders.
Now you may ask: "but in SC2 the marauder is being used quite a bit against Protoss and mech. and the marine has flat damage with 10.5 dps compared to the 10+10 vs armored of the marauder as well. so whats the difference?"
I believe the difference is the Colossus and the hellion. In SC2 the Colossus/Stalker mix is so core to the Protoss army that you can always field a good amount of marauders. their strength is not that they kill armored more easily. they simply tank a lot more of that colossus splash and prevent stalkers from microing too heavily around the bioball with their 6range+concussive shells. that's why it just feels like a "bigger marine", as it is simply used as such.
In TvT the fix can also just be to nerf vultures greatly, but I believe a tiny adjustment to the vulture (-2vs light) a tiny buff on the marines vs light (+1) and a tiny buff on the marauder (+1/2/3 vs armored or just overall) could do the trick too. and make the marauder more useful vs zerg, while a tiny nerf to the marines vs armored or armored+medium would strengthen hydra/lurker against bio. in it's current incarnation as well as in SC2, the marauder has only one real role which is killing ultralisks (marines behave badly against them due to 1+2 natural armor).
of course a similar outcome can be reached with a differend marauderdesign (like the more burstfocused approach).
|
On July 21 2013 23:47 Big J wrote:
ok, i just went to the unit tester and played around with the marine and the marauder and some relations to P/T units (amove battles). Right now I dont see much sense in using marauders in their current incarnation! 4tanks vs 10marauders has the exact same outcome as 4tanks vs 20marines (tanks win slightly).
Marines vs Stalkers is nearly as much of a stomp as marauders vs stalkers.
Marines are better vs immortals than marauders. same for zealots.
And then I found what I believe is the coreproblem of TvT bio. Vultures rape marines. and though they lose to marauders, it takes them an eternity to die. I always assumed vultures would lose to basically anything when unmicroed, but they are a brutal marinecounter.
Again I want to emphasize that the marauder has a hard time complementing the marine and vis-verca, as the marine already has more damageoutput against the armored tag than the marauder. meanwhile the marine cannot keep nonarmored units from destroying bio unless your bio fields a costequivalent of marines to his nonarmored units to begin with. It always comes down to playing marineheavy against Z/P (or a heavy zealot, zergling, hydralisk?, mutalisk, air switch will kill you - you cant really pump marines reactively well enough against a such). and against T, vultures are too good against both and probably tanks slightly too good against marauders.
Now you may ask: "but in SC2 the marauder is being used quite a bit against Protoss and mech. and the marine has flat damage with 10.5 dps compared to the 10+10 vs armored of the marauder as well. so whats the difference?"
I believe the difference is the Colossus and the hellion. In SC2 the Colossus/Stalker mix is so core to the Protoss army that you can always field a good amount of marauders. their strength is not that they kill armored more easily. they simply tank a lot more of that colossus splash and prevent stalkers from microing too heavily around the bioball with their 6range+concussive shells. that's why it just feels like a "bigger marine", as it is simply used as such.
In TvT the fix can also just be to nerf vultures greatly, but I believe a tiny adjustment to the vulture (-2vs light) a tiny buff on the marines vs light (+1) and a tiny buff on the marauder (+1/2/3 vs armored or just overall) could do the trick too. and make the marauder more useful vs zerg, while a tiny nerf to the marines vs armored or armored+medium would strengthen hydra/lurker against bio. in it's current incarnation as well as in SC2, the marauder has only one real role which is killing ultralisks (marines behave badly against them due to 1+2 natural armor).
of course a similar outcome can be reached with a differend marauderdesign (like the more burstfocused approach).
Maurauders are probably a bit too weak indeed. I honestly think Kabel has made a slight error in his testings (which of course is easy to do when you have a lot of work needed to be done);
He tested bio vs gateway and bio did a bit too well, and he concluded that it was the maurauder that was a bit too strong and thus nerfed it. But it was never the maurauder that was too good - instead it is zealots that does too bad a job of tanking. In PvZ they work very well as hydras deal much very little damage to light. But bio does a much better job of killing zealots than hydra does - thus it is barely worth it to get zealots vs bio in Starbow.
So next patch my hope is that we see this;
- Faster bio production relative to the protoss player.
- Zealots better as meatshield vs bio
- Matrix as a mid/late game ability - matrix as a free starting ability doesn't work if we want bio to be less cost efficient.
- Unique micro to the maurauder.
|
Only possible problem with buffing zealot as a tank is upsetting early-game PvZ... Maybe no more "one queen per hatch" to compensate?
Also, I'm really close to getting a better PC. Can't wait to stream in higher resolution without much frame drops In three weeks or so I think it will be up!
|
stalker/immortal/dragoon -
i think the best solution for the immortal.... is to turn it into a dragoon (give it a projectile, basically), and make stalker be a tier 2 harass/map control unit. I know immortals were added to give toss a third core unit, but i don't think the current line-up is any more interesting than zealot+dragoon.
about blink - The stalker can't be both the core army unit and a harass unit, and really, the protoss force doesn't need more than dagoon+zealot as the core of its army. Blink is a very interesting ability, but it fits better on a harass type unit. As Hider noted a few pages back, blink simply does not work on a core unit; we can't let stalkers be too strong or else their harass would be OP, which limits stalker's strength, leading to a weak midgame (this is what made the immortal addition necessary). This is why a dragoon as a core unit is better, because we can buff it to be stronger in head-on fights, without worrying about the many varied uses of blink.
*******
Warpgates/Gateways --
They're still not different enough to warrrant having both, and they're once again limited by the strength of the units. We can't warp in Immortals or have HTs warp in with enough energy to storm, that'd be too strong. i'm not a fan of mid-battle zealot warp-ins either.
My proposal to fix all this is to make the two gates have completely different unit line-ups. Zealot, immortal/dragoon, HT for gateway - Stalker, DT, (possible new shakuras style unit, :D) for warpgate. It'll be, in essence, a completely different production facility. The difference would be obvious, and the usage of each would align with the units it produces. Efficient, standard production of the core Auir style army at gateway, and then the inefficient, sneaky option of the Shakuras style warpgate. It fits lore-wise, it's intuitive, and it makes gateway/warpgate a choice with obvious weight. And furthermore, it allows to redesign the stalker as a non-core unit.
|
One or two people seem as though they might have been offended that I mentioned Starbow and monobattling in the same paragraph and I just wanted to reiterate that I didn't mean to cause offense by drawing comparisons. I just wanted to throw my support in for Kabel and the work that he's done by offering what I could. He deserves recognition.
|
On July 22 2013 04:46 Fishgle wrote:
stalker/immortal/dragoon -
i think the best solution for the immortal.... is to turn it into a dragoon (give it a projectile, basically), and make stalker be a tier 2 harass/map control unit. I know immortals were added to give toss a third core unit, but i don't think the current line-up is any more interesting than zealot+dragoon.
about blink - The stalker can't be both the core army unit and a harass unit, and really, the protoss force doesn't need more than dagoon+zealot as the core of its army. Blink is a very interesting ability, but it fits better on a harass type unit. As Hider noted a few pages back, blink simply does not work on a core unit; we can't let stalkers be too strong or else their harass would be OP, which limits stalker's strength, leading to a weak midgame (this is what made the immortal addition necessary). This is why a dragoon as a core unit is better, because we can buff it to be stronger in head-on fights, without worrying about the many varied uses of blink.
*******
Warpgates/Gateways --
They're still not different enough to warrrant having both, and they're once again limited by the strength of the units. We can't warp in Immortals or have HTs warp in with enough energy to storm, that'd be too strong. i'm not a fan of mid-battle zealot warp-ins either.
My proposal to fix all this is to make the two gates have completely different unit line-ups. Zealot, immortal/dragoon, HT for gateway - Stalker, DT, (possible new shakuras style unit, :D) for warpgate. It'll be, in essence, a completely different production facility. The difference would be obvious, and the usage of each would align with the units it produces. Efficient, standard production of the core Auir style army at gateway, and then the inefficient, sneaky option of the Shakuras style warpgate. It fits lore-wise, it's intuitive, and it makes gateway/warpgate a choice with obvious weight. And furthermore, it allows to redesign the stalker as a non-core unit.
I've been thinking about these things as well, and I agree with pretty much everything here.
|
On July 22 2013 03:25 Xiphias wrote:Only possible problem with buffing zealot as a tank is upsetting early-game PvZ... Maybe no more "one queen per hatch" to compensate? Also, I'm really close to getting a better PC. Can't wait to stream in higher resolution without much frame drops In three weeks or so I think it will be up!
Yeh obv. zealots shouldn't be better vs zerg early game. In fact I belive it could use a BT increase as 2 gate is really really strong.
|
On July 22 2013 04:46 Fishgle wrote:
stalker/immortal/dragoon -
i think the best solution for the immortal.... is to turn it into a dragoon (give it a projectile, basically), and make stalker be a tier 2 harass/map control unit. I know immortals were added to give toss a third core unit, but i don't think the current line-up is any more interesting than zealot+dragoon.
about blink - The stalker can't be both the core army unit and a harass unit, and really, the protoss force doesn't need more than dagoon+zealot as the core of its army. Blink is a very interesting ability, but it fits better on a harass type unit. As Hider noted a few pages back, blink simply does not work on a core unit; we can't let stalkers be too strong or else their harass would be OP, which limits stalker's strength, leading to a weak midgame (this is what made the immortal addition necessary). This is why a dragoon as a core unit is better, because we can buff it to be stronger in head-on fights, without worrying about the many varied uses of blink.
*******
Warpgates/Gateways --
They're still not different enough to warrrant having both, and they're once again limited by the strength of the units. We can't warp in Immortals or have HTs warp in with enough energy to storm, that'd be too strong. i'm not a fan of mid-battle zealot warp-ins either.
My proposal to fix all this is to make the two gates have completely different unit line-ups. Zealot, immortal/dragoon, HT for gateway - Stalker, DT, (possible new shakuras style unit, :D) for warpgate. It'll be, in essence, a completely different production facility. The difference would be obvious, and the usage of each would align with the units it produces. Efficient, standard production of the core Auir style army at gateway, and then the inefficient, sneaky option of the Shakuras style warpgate. It fits lore-wise, it's intuitive, and it makes gateway/warpgate a choice with obvious weight. And furthermore, it allows to redesign the stalker as a non-core unit.
Current immortal is basically a dragoon without a projectile (?) Do you think the gameplay will be better if it had a projectile?
|
It really does not need a projectile to be awesome. But it might need an attack delay, or some other thing to make them worse in a 1a army. Attack delay has the possible benifit (needs testing to know) of making them several times more effective when microed (this was the case for dragoons). A projectile will possibly achieve the same thing, but then we need to use the dragoon model.
I really would like to see the stalker further specialized, as this would also emphesize the role of the immortal. Nerfing their hp, and possibly making them light armor would do this, and in turn they can get more mobility in form of more speed or longer blink. Let stalkers be horrible in actual engagemenst, but brilliant at picking and harassing at multiple locations.
|
i like projectiles as a spectator, but i guess it's not too important gameplay-wise, other than stuff like blink/burrow micro.
|
On July 22 2013 06:03 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
It really does not need a projectile to be awesome. But it might need an attack delay, or some other thing to make them worse in a 1a army. Attack delay has the possible benifit (needs testing to know) of making them several times more effective when microed (this was the case for dragoons). A projectile will possibly achieve the same thing, but then we need to use the dragoon model.
I really would like to see the stalker further specialized, as this would also emphesize the role of the immortal. Nerfing their hp, and possibly making them light armor would do this, and in turn they can get more mobility in form of more speed or longer blink. Let stalkers be horrible in actual engagemenst, but brilliant at picking and harassing at multiple locations.
I've begun "massing" warp prisms in my TvP's. Some for drops in main, and others so i can drop immortals on top of my opponents army (vs tanks). Honestly, it is an awesome and microintensive unit vs terran. Vs zerg i- not so much, as your forced to defend more, but it also has a smaller role in this matchup, so it's not that big of a deal. Also, you can still immortal drop your opponents expos to take out their static defense, and then warp in DT's etc.
IMO protoss gateway units feels like it has more micro potential than ever before, and I think other people will come to a similar realisation once they start incorporating them more into their play
|
Good evening.
I am all of a sudden quite busy in life. I will try to squeeze in an update for the game as soon as I can. : /
But I do have to write this post, to get some information off my chest.
First of all, what I think is left to do with Starbow, before we start to promote/advertise it:
+ Show Spoiler + - Find a good way of having the Marauder/Immortal in the game, and make sure they contribute to a better game. (If we fail, after more testing/patching, look for other solutions.) - Fix the Warp gate / Gateway system. - Fix what Protoss building produces what unit. - Adjust Dark Swarm + Stasis Field. (They were great in BW, but here they are not, due to reasons I will cover later.) - Rework or take a second look at some unit relationsships (For example, Goliaths too good vs Carriers?) - Make sure the design and balance is ok for unused units, like Devourer, Scout, Viper, Ghost, BC etc. (Might be due to the meta-game they never see play. I just want to make sure they are neither worthless or broken, at least.) - Establish a decent balance between the races. (We are on our way.)
- Establish a decent gameplay, where "lame playstyles" are not the best way to play. (For example make sure turtling, heavy deathballing, extremely greedy play etc can be punished. We seem to be on our way here too.) - Fix the economy. There might be additional tweaks needed. - Fix bugs ( My never ending list  ) I am especially sad that Defilers can not burrow, due to the model lacks the animation for doing so. Not sure how to solve it.
@Protoss Gateway/Warpgate and Immortal
+ Show Spoiler +
I consider to do this:
Zealot, Stalker, DT, HT at Gateway
Zealot, Stalker, DT, HT at Warp gate
Observer, Warp Prism, Immortal and Reaver at Robotic facility
Corsair, Scout, Sentinel, Carrier, Arbiter at Stargate
- All 3 tech choices more viable in all match-ups? (Stargate is almost only used early/mid game vs Z)
- Immortal production would be a bit slower, which would make Bio little stronger in early/mid game.
- Sentinel starts with Safeguard.
(If I put it on the Fleet beacon as an upgrade, that buildings kinda does the same thing in three ways: stops heavy tank play via Carriers, Arbiters and Safeguard.)
I am not perfectly happy with this, for some reasons. But I think it is important to revert the Gateway/Warp gate to something that does not annoy the players. (As it currently does.) Some of you have also reported to me that massable Immortals are currently very strong. One way of nerfing them is to limit their production a bit, by moving them to Robotic facility, which makes P require more investments in infrastructure to amass them early.
If the Robotic facility has both Sentinel + Immortal, that will be a superior and important tech choice in PvP and PvT?
(Protoss will "always" go Robotic facility since they need it to survive vs almost everything offensive Terran can do early: Marauder/Bio attacks, Vulture with Spider mines, Siege tank pushes with Bio.)
Plus the Robotic facility is superior in the harassment/map control tools it provides for P: Sentinel with Null Ward, Warp in on Warp Prism, Reaver drops. It kinda does it all? Corsairs might be better vs Z. Unless we do something more with the Scout.
I am still doubtful what to do with the Gateway/Warp gate. I know a production time difference is the old solution, and easy to implement. But I have never been a huge fan of it. It just feels kinda.. punishing in an uninteresting way? I like that Gateway/Warp gates have different advantages/disadvantages, since it gives room for more macro styles for Protoss, depending on how they use them.
If HTs can be warped in again, I have to remove the Amulet upgrade? Or add some kind of delay to Storm?
Oh well..
@Marauder and Immortal
+ Show Spoiler +I will try to give it more of a burst attack. Hopefully it will be more interesting to use.
At the same time, if Immortals are moved to the Robotic facility, Marauders will be better in the early game due to less Immortal production from Protoss.
I will probably make the attack speed lower for Immortals, but each attack stronger. In this way, it will be more important to target fire stuff. Further suggestions on how to improve the "microbility" of this unit is welcome.
Change damage point kinda makes them annoying to micro. You shoot something, there is a delay of 0.5 seconds before the shot goes off, if you move the Immortal during this time, no shot is fired at all. Feels like it punishes micro :S
Ps. I would also like to add some kind of Immortal upgrade to the Robotic bay, IF Sentinel and Safeguard is moved.
Robotic bay will only be built for Reavers now. I would prefer if there is some other reason to get it, to make it feel less narrow. This is not super important though.
@Larger changes to Stalker/Immortal/Warp Gate/Gateway
+ Show Spoiler +I will try to aim for simple and easy solutions to these units and dynamics, mainly for two reasons: - It is easier to learn and understand Starbow, if most of the content is familiar. - I do not want to frustrate you all anymore by doing huge reworks. If I do something big, it must be a great and solid theoretical base for it. (Which was the reason I tried the Immortal/Marauder.) Warpgates/Gateways --
My proposal to fix all this is to make the two gates have completely different unit line-ups. Zealot, immortal/dragoon, HT for gateway - Stalker, DT, (possible new shakuras style unit, :D) for warpgate. It'll be, in essence, a completely different production facility. The difference would be obvious, and the usage of each would align with the units it produces. Efficient, standard production of the core Auir style army at gateway, and then the inefficient, sneaky option of the Shakuras style warpgate. It fits lore-wise, it's intuitive, and it makes gateway/warpgate a choice with obvious weight. And furthermore, it allows to redesign the stalker as a non-core unit. I did have this in Starbow 14 months ago, or something. Zealot, Dragoon, HT at Gateway. Zealot, Stalker, DT at Warp gate. As interesting as it may sound, it did not work that well in the game. The main reason was the Stalker: It was never good enough at harassing. And if I made it good enough, it just became insane in combat... All great harassment units in the game must be mobile, can surpass terrain, and avoid attacks. - Almost all really good harassment units are flying (Mutalisk, Banshee, Corsair. Dropships. Warp Prism) - Reapers, Vultures and Zerglings are among the fastest ground units in the game, and can escape from most enemy units Stalkers with Blink are nice, but what can they do when Terran get 1-2 Tanks up? What can they do when Zerg gets a decent number of Zerglings/Hydras up in the base? (Faster on creep) Even if Stalkers start with Blink, it is so easy to stop them from harassing. (Unless P mass them.) They need a new fancy ability, or a very high movement speed. And it just looks silly if Stalkers move at speed 3.5 or higher. When I had this in the game, and Stalkers could only be built from Warp gates, which required the Warp gate upgrade, Stalkers got out-classed by other harassment options at a similar tech level. - Zealots with a Warp Prism - Tech for a Reaver - Sentinels, who are now in the game - Corsairs vs Z If the Stalker shall be a pure harassment unit, and be a better choice than the other Protoss harassment units, it either need to be at its own position in the tech tree, or become much better. And I think that is hard, or at least require huge rework. I do not say it is impossible. But as I said above, I need to have a great theoretical base for this, with as many angles covered, with as many questions as possible answeared.
|
I will try to give it more of a burst attack. Hopefully it will be more interesting to use.
At the same time, if Immortals are moved to the Robotic facility, Marauders will be better in the early game due to less Immortal production from Protoss.
I think it should be burst attack with higher range tbh. Otherwise it will make bio much harder to play without any "real" compensation. Higher range (if done correctly) will be a nice reward as it will make maurauders (+ marines) cost inefficient vs gateway (as we can reduce the HP of the maurauder).
Why not just drop Zealots with a Warp Prism?
Why not just tech for a Reaver?
Why not build Sentinels, who are now in the game?
Why not just build Corsairs vs Z?
I think its good at harassing at the moment tbh. 4 stalkers in a warp prism can come very early and easily kill workers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
