|
On August 24 2013 01:04 Foxxan wrote:
Its way to easy to say if tvp is favored lategame for terran
1) sv vs arbiter, a very important battle. You say with decent emp micro. How u know this now? What if the protoss use decent arbiter micro?
2) The sentinel with safeguard, not tested alot imo. I believe it can be really good if used correct
3) better archon
Its not as easy as u think it is
im just talking about immos here. Ofc immos shouldn't be cost effective vs tank + vultures in mid/large sized battles - We do want to reward protoss player for mixing in HT's for storm, arbiters, sentinels and warp prism drop play, but there is just no way the current Immo vs tank dynamic is fair.
|
@Immortal vs Tanks test done by Hider
But it comes down to this: how strong shall immobile units be vs mobile units?
Imagine if the scenario was even: 5 Immortals beat 5 Tanks. Why Siege up? Why sacrifice mobility?
What would happen with 1 Warp Prism? Or 1 Sentinel in this scenario?
IMO, it shall be hard for P to engage T when Sieged up. Unless he uses combat tricks like Stasis, Safeguard, Drops etc. Instead it is stronger to attack at many locations and spread the Terran thin.
What is a reasonable outcome? 5 Immortals vs 5 Tanks and 1 Tank survive? Sounds more unfair to me.
|
On August 23 2013 22:44 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2013 21:45 SolidSMD wrote:
Why do you keep claiming that a mech transition is impossible? How many times have you tried it? what sort of transitions did you try? what timings did you try? what maps did you play on? were you behind? were you expanding too fast or too slow? were you too passive with the transition? was your transition too extreme? if you invest in upgrades for bio and try a complete transition to mech in a couple minutes then obviously it will be very fragile, this means you either add in vultures or tanks for a bio/mech army before transitioning completely.
Hider, you have some good idea's, but again, you jump on the IMBA-boat too quickly, suggesting changes that probably aren't needed (unnecessary changes are a waste of time, spending time implementing it, balancing it, playtesting it, hoping it does its intended job and not screw too much with other match-ups).
Why wouldn't it work to send a squad of crackling/defiler's to an expo? has it been tried? and when you tried it, did you at least try to pull the enemy forces out of position with your main forces? why not drop it with an overlord like in BW, harder to snipe off, it's faster and can pass over terrain.
About orbitals: i'd trade nexus for CC any day, extra orbitals are very useful but have you ever seen someone make an extra macro-nexus? Lategame utility of chrono is very small, while scans are the ultimate way of tracking armymovement and scouting transitions/expo's. Calldown supply is a free 100 minerals + no scv mining time lost and it's instant.
With your suggestion it will be a hell to implement it without bugs, balance it and it might have as side-effect that lategame terran will make extra orbitals and block passageways whole the time over whole the map (might even be useful during battles) without being sure that it would actually fix the 'issue'.
Rather than stating problems and suggesting unit fixes for it, why not make discussions about builds, try to think more about how to fix the problem with buildalterations/unitcomps/strategies given what we currently have in starbow and after playtesting that stuff thoroughly discussing it and playtesting it then suggest a change.
Changing one unit can have a huge impact on multiple MU's and it takes a long time to see its effect, old strategies will be worse, new ones might be better and this will create a period of many buildorders where racebalance will appear to go up and down. A good example: Hots recently made one nerf to the hellbat and arguably the metagame has changed big time over the last few weeks (following the show META, 1 week terran claimed pvt was P favored due to no harrass possible anymore in earlygame, the show after that the same people said pvt was now terranfavored as they can go triple CC without being punished), and this is in a mass played game, meaning the metagame will change more rapidly than in starbow.
So it pisses me off to see a list of changes suggested every fucking day, you cannot balance a game that gets adjusted too much. That said, there are exceptions where it's clear that a unit seems imbalanced by looking at its raw stats, but i do not believe there are units in the game currently that can be called imbalanced by just looking at their stats.
And yes, I'm a hypocrite, my whineposts about vultures were probably not justified. What build do you do when you transition into mech? You adds tanks right? How are you supposed to play with tanks while your transitining into mech? Here is the thing - You can only keep them as a deahball along with your bio units. In that proces your so weak since you need to defend multiple bases with an immobile medium cost effective deathball army.
1) bio/tank/vessel has been viable in the past, why wouldn't it be now?
2) you're too narrowminded
if you add tanks once you're on 4 bases already, then you're too late to just add tanks obviously, i see this working when getting your third.
And there are many ways to transition to unit X, use other units as stepping stones:
Say you open bio and toss goes for reavers, on your 2 bases you add starports and add in viking/banshee/medivac to harass and pick off warpprism + reaver. While getting your third, add facts and start making vultures and tanks, around this time the protoss is probably getting out storm, so use the 2 starports you already have to start adding vessels. This would be a decent gameplan
Opposed to: toss goes reavers to counter your bio, you add tanks...which don't really counter reavers that well if they accompanied by a gateway-army. Try out builds damnit.
@Dirtybag
Haven't come across something that annoys me yet. Seems like it's pretty OK, but too soon to really comment on it i think, needs more playtesting.
@stim on medic
I don't think this gives any more mobility, stim in starbow isn't designed to give you more mobility imo, it doesn't last long enough for you to spam in like in sc2, so you shouldn't stim if you're not at the scene yet anyway.
Also note that in terms of percentages of health lost it is higher than in sc2 because we have no combat shields, so stimming a couple seconds before the battle will mean you need to stim again during combat and that is pretty huge in terms of health lost. This is one of the reasons it is harder to fight vs banes than in sc2, because (if i'm not mistaken) banes oneshot a marine that is stimmed once.
Then again, letting medics have stim that doesn't cost health but with a cooldown wouldn't be gamebreaking.
But letting them have stim which costs health is bad (reasons are clear i think)
@Viper
i think it's fine like it is atm, the slow is powerful but fair i think.
@zerglings in pvz
they are not good in ball vs ball fights because it's easier to clump up your army than in bw, so their surface area is much smaller. Then again, you didn't really see much ling-use vs toss in BW apart from harassing bases i think?
They still are great to harass imo, 2 overlords with lings dropped in your main is really annoying to deal with if your warpgates are on cooldown or you don't have warpgates yet. And ling/dark swarm is still great to take out expo's on big maps.
@gateway/warpgate
agreed, have felt same annoyances.
|
bio/tank/vessel has been viable in the past, why wouldn't it be now?
What do you base this off. I have actually never seen anyone win with this composition (it probably has occured but the statistics aren't in the bio + tank favor here). Based on my own playing experiences, both playing against it and with it, it just felt quite inferior to mech.
|
@Stim
Stimpack is the same in Starbow as in SC2. Same duration and same attack increase. But you are right that since we have no Combat shields, Banelings do 1-shot Stimmed Marines. Might explain why these battles seems so unfair!!
|
zerglings were used in pvz alot, not just as harassing units but as the core unit
they were incrredible good there overall
Zerglings are still very good imo, but mass reavers makes it hard and storm is better now because of clumping also
|
@ Carrier micro
Implementing the carrier micro (if it is actually gone) is really easy. Just use default HOTS carrier. It is SUPPOSE to be BW microable in Sbow, we even custom made it so before HOTS came out. Please fix this ASAP Kabel 
|
On August 24 2013 01:10 Hider wrote:What do you base this off. I have actually never seen anyone win with this composition (it probably has occured but the statistics aren't in the bio + tank favor here). Based on my own playing experiences, both playing against it and with it, it just felt quite inferior to mech.
We have played a couple games in that style that went to 40 mins, it's hard for me to believe that you instantly die with that playstyle in the 5-10 mins that you need to fully transition to mech.
And please don't mention statistics if you base it off a test sample of 5-10 games.
@stim
didn't we have a shorter duration stim a while ago?  didn't notice when it changed.
At least for some reason it feels like you can't stim as much in starbow as in sc2, a big factor is probably because medics stim as well atm.
|
Unit test map "Starbow Tester 2.0" Updated!
|
Regarding immo vs tanks.
Immo is your dps. Tanks are you meat shield (and dps when they manage to get up to a tank).
Wouldn't you want something more like a 2:1 ratio or lower of zealots:immo if the enemy is tank heavy. Back off when the zealots die with the immo.
You won't trade cost efficiently unless you engage reallllly well, but you will kill their army, and you should be able to afford it because you are Toss.
What concerns me in this scenario, spider mines.
Mines must be high damage, low splash. High splash and low damage means a few mines will inflict a ton of damage because of how SC2 pathing clumps. High damage low splash means you can use them in conjunction with vultures as a nice way to fight vs stalkers and immo. It also means you do inflict casualties, so getting mines out there is actually useful, but not op.
My other concern is that when you perform a big attack against a mech position, immo just might not have the range or mobility compared to a dragoon to de-engage when the zealots die. Or the window for moving in with your immo is really small because by the time you get into range with immo the zealots have already fought and died.
My last concern is that the immortal in sc2 is a direct hard counter against mech and armored in general. A bit of an identity crisis if they don't straight up tank damage from mech. If you do have two tanks vs tanks (zealots and immo), then you've got a realllly hard counter sort of army that we saw plenty of times in the old days of sbow. We know full and well how terrible that worked in actuality.
|
Wouldn't you want something more like a 2:1 ratio or lower of zealots:immo if the enemy is tank heavy. Back off when the zealots die with the immo.
Shouldn't you want vultures in your army as buffer units vs zealots and immortals?
My other concern is that when you perform a big attack against a mech position, immo just might not have the range or mobility compared to a dragoon to de-engage when the zealots die.
2.75 move speed an they have +2 range upgade. Mobility isn't the problem. They are just straight up UP in a direct fight.
|
On August 24 2013 02:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Wouldn't you want something more like a 2:1 ratio or lower of zealots:immo if the enemy is tank heavy. Back off when the zealots die with the immo. Shouldn't you want vultures in your army as buffer units vs zealots and immortals? Show nested quote +
My other concern is that when you perform a big attack against a mech position, immo just might not have the range or mobility compared to a dragoon to de-engage when the zealots die.
2.75 move speed an they have +2 range upgade. Mobility isn't the problem. They are just straight up UP in a direct fight.
Well the vultures are quite less efficient in a big fight vs zealots considering they sit there eating up freidnly siege tank fire and zealot blades when trying to tank but yeah.
Do you have any games that you think really show off the issue, I'd love to see reps of some good tvp.
|
On August 24 2013 03:09 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2013 02:52 Hider wrote:Wouldn't you want something more like a 2:1 ratio or lower of zealots:immo if the enemy is tank heavy. Back off when the zealots die with the immo. Shouldn't you want vultures in your army as buffer units vs zealots and immortals?
My other concern is that when you perform a big attack against a mech position, immo just might not have the range or mobility compared to a dragoon to de-engage when the zealots die.
2.75 move speed an they have +2 range upgade. Mobility isn't the problem. They are just straight up UP in a direct fight. Well the vultures are quite less efficient in a big fight vs zealots considering they sit there eating up freidnly siege tank fire and zealot blades when trying to tank but yeah. Do you have any games that you think really show off the issue, I'd love to see reps of some good tvp.
Hmm I have five games with Stana. Obv not all of them he goes immortal heavy and there are other explanations for the losses (we spent some time discussing ways he could improve his play, and I think he will do alot better with more play), but I still think the discrepancy in cost efficiency in all of games is too high. I think a 50-70% advantage in cost efficiency vs low-tech units (rather than a 100%) is a better target at the expense of terran having a slightly easier/safer time getting expansions up.
http://drop.sc/355213
http://drop.sc/355212
http://drop.sc/355211
http://drop.sc/355210
http://drop.sc/355209
|
I wouldn't pull too much balance data out of my games vs Hider. I didn't play particularly well nor following standard builds. But it's more than nothing though.
Edit: I'm Stana if you didn't figure.
|
just to get this clear, vultures with tanks
Doesnt mean vultures need to tank the damage, they can sit back and let a few tanks take the damage
and go heavy damage vs the zealots
|
So I think after yesterday it seems that most people agree with this;
- Dragoon accelerates much better than the immortal which makes it more micro rewarding --> let's see if we (aka Dec) can replicate the same thing for the Immortal.
- Spider Mines with Meele range but faster placement feels better.
- Warp prism is currently too fast.
Other things I wanna see tweaked
- Buff Storm duration, nerf DPS vs non-armored units --> This will make it better vs mech while making it more forgiving to play against with hydras/bio as all your units doesn't die instantly.
- Reaver need a splash damage nerf if pathing stays. Its too unforgiving to play against atm (even with warp prism speed nerf).
Map (econ) discussion;
Most current Starbow maps are currently balanced in the way that they;
A) Forces the immobile player (let's just say mech player from now on) to take bases at a faster pace than what they are comfortable with
B) Tanks become insanely cost effective due to maps being much less open than what they were in BW.
According to Solid, he dislikes this map design as it feels like you can't flank, and I agree with this. Trading at a 1:2 ratio vs mech throughout the entire game isn't particularly fun. IMO a 1:1.5 ratio seems a bit more enjoyable and fair for both players, however that will require that expansions are easier to secure.
The downside of making expo's easier to take is that it could encourage more turtle play which can be quite boring, but I don't think it neccesarily has to be that way if done correctly. Currently many 3rds and 4ths are really hard to take for two reasons;
1) You need to spread your self quite thinly to secure most 3rds and 4ths, and
2) You also need to go through "open passages" to secure a 3rd.
Starbow Squares is probably the "worst" example of that. Protoss can actually get a perfect flank when terran tries to secure his 3rd. However, if he does manage to secure it, he is really favored in the late game as he can take all the middle expos for "free" and passages are so narrow that he can trade at a 2:1 ratio.
Instead, I wanna propose a new methodology for map design for Starbow;
1) When securing a 3rd you spread your self out out a bit (think FS), but you never go through any open passages. Thus attacking into a 3 base mech player isn't realistic in most games, but instead drop play and light pressure should be rewarded in this phase.
2) When taking a 4th, instead of being required to A) Spreading your self thinly and B) Exposing your self out on the middle of the map at the same time, you should only be exposed to the latter, so the 4th base hould be relatively close to either your natural or 3rd.
This type of "easy 4th" doesn't need to have full mineral pathes and a geyser. Instead, something like 5/6 mineral pathes with 0 geyser could work.
3) Maps becomes more BW'ish in the sense that they are more "open" which allows flanking to be more rewarded.
An example of what I imagine;
A reworked FS map with a low econ 4th right outside the bridge to your natural (out in the open). So when your taking the 4th the opponent can get a good flank against you, but you also have a good tank count to defend because your not particularly spread out in this phase of the game.
What this new map methodology will accomplish
- Higher econ for the mech player, but action should/could occur a bit sooner than in BW as protoss can start army trading (if he has good micro) when terran takes the easy 4th (should be around 15th minute mark typically)
- Easier to flank for protoss in the mid/late game which will increase cost efficiency of units like zealots, stalkers, immortals
- Terran can now afford to be more creative with its openings and vulture harass. At the moment he is forced to add 3-4 facotries ASAP due to neccesity of having lots of tanks + defensive vultures in order to secure expansions. I wanna see more banshee/drop play (not that it can't be done atm., but it just seems that the risk/reward against a solid protoss player isn't there).
- Lower punishment early midgame for terran for not having a really refined build and perfect tank positioning (which is good as I don't think players should die if they just make a "small mistake").
- Lower punishment for protoss late game for not Stasis'ing the majority of the terran army as the lower tier units with a good flank can fight better vs mech.
Anyone up for trying to make such a map?
|
I'd rather have this eco: (Me and dec's idea.... .... mostly dec's....)
Let each worker harvest faster BUT give it a short stop right after it has returned the minerals to the base. This way the current eco with 8 workers stay the same (if we do the math right) BUT you can now have 3 workers per patch BUT the third worker adds very little (like +20% compared to one worker). I would also like to see more 1500 patches. This way it is still better to expand than sit on few bases (even though now it does not matter if you have 8 on two bases or 16 on one), but not you are not FORCED to expand. In other works, immobile strats like mech, still stand a chance vs a very mobile protoss by over saturation and going for timing pushes more like it was in BW.
I do not think this will remove any of the current strategies and gamestyles but open up for more freedom and strategies for the players. Yes, we may see some more 1-2 bases pushes and plays but I think giving players as many options as possible always is better than limiting them.
|
On August 24 2013 17:26 Hider wrote:
B) Tanks become insanely cost effective due to maps being much less open than what they were in BW.
Yes, this. Having a weaker but more mobile army doesn't help if you have to attack through the same choke anyway.
|
On August 24 2013 18:03 Xiphias wrote:
I'd rather have this eco: (Me and dec's idea.... .... mostly dec's....)
Let each worker harvest faster BUT give it a short stop right after it has returned the minerals to the base. This way the current eco with 8 workers stay the same (if we do the math right) BUT you can now have 3 workers per patch BUT the third worker adds very little (like +20% compared to one worker). I would also like to see more 1500 patches. This way it is still better to expand than sit on few bases (even though now it does not matter if you have 8 on two bases or 16 on one), but not you are not FORCED to expand. In other works, immobile strats like mech, still stand a chance vs a very mobile protoss by over saturation and going for timing pushes more like it was in BW.
I do not think this will remove any of the current strategies and gamestyles but open up for more freedom and strategies for the players. Yes, we may see some more 1-2 bases pushes and plays but I think giving players as many options as possible always is better than limiting them.
yeah dec was talking about that yesterday and i agree with it.
|
Kabel was going to run the numbers on that eco.
In theory, it does open up room for a third worker per patch at much lower efficiency.
This allows someone with no map control to work on eco and stay alive while still heavily encouraging expanding.
In addition, I am pretty sure everyone is in favor of 1.5k mineral patches.
Kabel is going to run the numbers on this eco.
I'm currently working on micro retool for a lot of units, it'll be uploading as a unit tester map. In addition, I plan to make a vod explaining the micro and what systems go to support it.
Did you knowIf probe movement speed is nerfed by 10% it is roughly the same speed as BW probe (using match point for comparison, the map very would could be off in dimensions comparatively but its a good estimate of our scale vs bw).
Workers are generally what most units were scaled to, so marines, zealots, all the basic units at least were moving 10% faster on match point than bw (pre speed nerf).
And from what I've been able to dig up, BW is roughly 7-9% slower game speed.
The micro retool will mean changing move speed and attack speed, so good bye red numbers for the units affected. This is of course, up to kabel on what he actually implements. Back to work!
edit: I have bug when I download the sbow unit tester. All text is replaced by debug test when I test the map. Its functional, just not pretty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
