|
On August 27 2013 19:44 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
The idea of a temporary defensive boostin exchange for damaging nearby allies is interesting, but Hider's version would be broken.
The problem is that defensive boosts are not that interesting (read: secondary positive attribute), so they need to be overwhelmingly stong to be of any use (matrix anyone?). To balance this out they need an impressive couterbalance to not make them broken.
My take on this (for Stalkers) would be something like this:
Void shift/meld/whatever fits - The stalker phases out of existance for 2 seconds becomming untargetable (but can still be damaged indirectly) and unable to blink or shoot. Once the ability ends the stalker rips back into reality dealing 30 damage (less to armored?) to all units in the nearby area including the stalker itself.
It will be hard to balance, but fits better thematically and allows more counterplay and decisionmaking.
When that is said, I still prefer to balance Stalkers with speed and more focus on offense than defence.
I specified what I believe needs to be accomplished for the stalker to have a uniqe fun role in the TvP matchup (which really is the only real probelm with the stalker). I believe my solution accomplishes that, and you don't disagre directly with that, but just says its not interesting cus its defensive.
Sry but that's nonsense. Its not any more defensive than stim is. What it does (if it works as intended) is that allows small groups of stalkers to be used in some situations aggressively. What does your solution accomplish in that regard? Can that solution "break" the tank + planetary combo efficiently if you can't blink?
I think any other type of ability that doesn't accomplish aggresive unique stalker usage in TvP matchup is absolutely pointless as I belivee we should try to minimize the amount of abilities in the game if they don't provide any gameplay/add new unique roles to it. At least a new that already has an ability (blink) shouldn't need a another microintensive ablity just for the sake of adding even more micro to it.
So I believe that if you want the stalker to stay in the game, then help find solutions that solves the specified lack of "fun role" for the stalker in the matchup. If no proper solution is found, then dragoon is probably a superior option (assuming nullsphrer get an anti-air buff).
|
I'm not saying that it isn't interesting - I'm saying that this kind of ability is problematic.
The problem is in the fact that defensive strengts on any units needs to be magnitudes more powerful than offensive strengts to be just as interesting and micro friendly.
You need to be really careful with this kind of ability, else you either get a really boring balanced ability or a fun but broken one.
Comparing this to how basic HP pools function:
Immortals/Zealots/Firebats/Marauders having some extra HP compared to other units in the same tech range is not all that interesting, but balanced.
Ultralisks having huge HP advantages to other comparable units is really interesting, but nessesitates them having large disadvantages to balance this out.
|
On August 27 2013 03:51 SmileZerg wrote:
The problem with these discussions about the Stalker's role, I think, is that everyone is still thinking of them as the primary Toss ranged ground unit, when what we should be doing is putting the Immortal back in the Gateway, modelling its stats after the Dragoon, and making the Stalker weak versus ground with a good, long-range AA attack - like a really mobile Zerg Queen in a way.
The dynamics should be reading "Immortal + Zealots = Hydra (+lings)" etc. Stalker should be a support unit you unlock with Twilight Council. This could also help prevent rushing to Reavers too quickly, since Protoss will need to invest in either Stargate or Twilight tech to have any mobile AA units, pure Gateway/Robo will be a gamble.
Quoting this because it got drowned in the long walls of text on the last page.
Does no one have a comment on trying to go in this direction rather than put wonky abilities on the Stalker to force it into some weird, narrow niche in PvMech?
|
On August 27 2013 21:02 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
I'm not saying that it isn't interesting - I'm saying that this kind of ability is problematic.
The problem is in the fact that defensive strengts on any units needs to be magnitudes more powerful than offensive strengts to be just as interesting and micro friendly.
You need to be really careful with this kind of ability, else you either get a really boring balanced ability or a fun but broken one.
Comparing this to how basic HP pools function:
Immortals/Zealots/Firebats/Marauders having some extra HP compared to other units in the same tech range is not all that interesting, but balanced.
Ultralisks having huge HP advantages to other comparable units is really interesting, but nessesitates them having large disadvantages to balance this out.
Hmm so you believe this unit will be better for defensive purposes? I would tend to agree if the duration was higher than 3-4 seconds. However, with only 3-4 second duration the opponent can simply force it by fake engaging, retreating, then come back 3 seconds later. Thus it will be mostly usefull in scenarios where;
1) Opponent can't retreat.
2) Opponent has a low amount of splash units
3) You have good micro.
Further, remember that stalker is already a pretty bad defensive unit (since its quite weak vs most diverse unit compositions). So don't expect it to be a unit/ability that is used for defensive purposes or an ability which makes it difficult to attack into.
|
Don't know how I can explain it any better.
I made some observations on unit attributes - go read the posts.
One of the main points I made is that any strengths that will help units die slower (defensive) are not going to be as important for the way it plays as offensive attributes. This means that defensive abilities need to be stronger to have the same effect on gameplay, but will in return have much harsher effect on balance.
In short, a defensive (survival based) ability needs to be a lot stronger than an offensive (attack based) ability to be as interesting, and this can cause balance problems.
It does not nessesarely cause problems (see matrix), but you need to be careful. You suggestion is a defensive ability as it helps the stalker survive longer.
|
Starbow Micro/Pathing Prototype Tester updated. Now includes zerglings, marines, small change to hydras, damage modification to immortals, and a small change to mutalisks (try out irradiate now).
|
On August 28 2013 06:32 decemberscalm wrote:
Starbow Micro/Pathing Prototype Tester updated. Now includes zerglings, marines, small change to hydras, damage modification to immortals, and a small change to mutalisks (try out irradiate now).
Tested speed hydras vs zealots. Group kiting is a lot better than individual micro at the moment.
|
On August 28 2013 06:49 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:32 decemberscalm wrote:
Starbow Micro/Pathing Prototype Tester updated. Now includes zerglings, marines, small change to hydras, damage modification to immortals, and a small change to mutalisks (try out irradiate now). Tested speed hydras vs zealots. Group kiting is a lot better than individual micro at the moment.
Which is the advantage of getting speed. Also encourages the Protoss player to tech up to speed.
When both players have speed you can't simply kite anymore.
|
the zerglings sure attack fast now 
|
On August 28 2013 08:18 Foxxan wrote:the zerglings sure attack fast now
I didn't actually modify zergling attack o.o
Get on! Or going to bed now? 
|
Another thing we probably have to discuss is whether planetary needs to stay in the game with the new econ. At the moment it is absolutely neccesary as terran is so spreadly thin out with going mech, however when its army value/expansion ratio increases, then a planetary will likely make turtling too easy. If stalker stays in the game and a solution is found which allows it to break the "few tanks + planetary" combo with good micro, then the planetary probably won't be a problem, however as I think Kabel will choose the option of getting Sbow ready ASAP, he will thus opt for the Dragoon.
Relative to BW though, protoss does have warp tech here which makes late-game harassing stronger. While it is a weaker version than in Sc2, it still gives them an advantage, which will make defending without planetary in the late game very difficult. One possible middleway here is to give bunkers an ebay upgrade that increases HP/damge/shield or something like that.
|
Oh, I just had an idea. What if the plaintary itself does not do any dmg but buffs nearby friendly units with either hp or dmg or both. This way, you have to defend with units, but the units benefit from defending.
I agree that a bunker buff could od the same, but PvT is usually mech and lategame bunkers do nothing for mech.
|
On August 28 2013 16:58 Xiphias wrote:
Oh, I just had an idea. What if the plaintary itself does not do any dmg but buffs nearby friendly units with either hp or dmg or both. This way, you have to defend with units, but the units benefit from defending.
I agree that a bunker buff could od the same, but PvT is usually mech and lategame bunkers do nothing for mech.
I don't know. I like that protoss or zerg can attack in the later stages of the mid game (15-20 minute mark) where terran is on 3-4 bases and not particularly spread out. As long as tehre is some kind of base with a strong defenders advantage I think the game will be relatively stale in the midgame.
I think that in BW terrans did fine (I guess) without the planetary and with a BW econ, the only real difference is prob just warp tech, which probably isn't a big enough advantage for protoss late game mobility to justifiy the excistence of the current planetary.
|
This kind of an odd solution, but how about making Terran structures share armor upgrades with Mech? And on top of that, we can give bunkers an upgrade at the armory that gives them an autoturret (like in the campaign). That way T can dump minerals into static defense without tying up supply.
Or another kind of odd idea (which goes back like 100 pages in this thread) of giving the PF defensive spells (to contrast with the Orbital's economic spells). ie: Create Autoturret; Create Point Defense Drone; etc.
edit: this assumes we remove the current cannon from the PF, which i agree makes harassment and/or small attack squads rather inefffective in the midgame
On August 27 2013 03:51 SmileZerg wrote:
The problem with these discussions about the Stalker's role, I think, is that everyone is still thinking of them as the primary Toss ranged ground unit, when what we should be doing is putting the Immortal back in the Gateway, modelling its stats after the Dragoon, and making the Stalker weak versus ground with a good, long-range AA attack - like a really mobile Zerg Queen in a way.
The dynamics should be reading "Immortal + Zealots = Hydra (+lings)" etc. Stalker should be a support unit you unlock with Twilight Council. This could also help prevent rushing to Reavers too quickly, since Protoss will need to invest in either Stargate or Twilight tech to have any mobile AA units, pure Gateway/Robo will be a gamble.
Also, re-quoting this post because it's still being ignored, and i think it's important.
|
On August 28 2013 07:55 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2013 06:49 Hider wrote:On August 28 2013 06:32 decemberscalm wrote:
Starbow Micro/Pathing Prototype Tester updated. Now includes zerglings, marines, small change to hydras, damage modification to immortals, and a small change to mutalisks (try out irradiate now). Tested speed hydras vs zealots. Group kiting is a lot better than individual micro at the moment. Which is the advantage of getting speed. Also encourages the Protoss player to tech up to speed. When both players have speed you can't simply kite anymore.
Ok. I tried individual micro in speed vs speed, though kinda disturbuting when i also click on the zealots (and not just the hydra). Anyway, speedzealots really raped double-upgraded hydras. While I agree that speedzealot should win, esp if Dragoon is implemented (as that unit should be worse vs hydras than stalkers with 16 damage vs normal), the discrepencay is prob a bit too late atm.
I believe that with 10 chargelots a-moved vs 10 individual microed hydras, roughly 3-5 zealots should survive (?) To me it seemed that 8 zealots or something like that survived.
edit: this assumes we remove the current cannon from the PF, which i agree makes harassment and/or small attack squads rather inefffective in the midgame
I think current planetary works very well vs bio heavy play. Honestly, I believe that bio heavy play vs zerg for instance has potential to be insanely awesome as zerg can harass terran so much easier than they can in Sc2 due to the activation thing. But TvZ is probably one of the least understood matchups in Sbow so it hasn't really been seen yet.
But vs mech, you already have tanks + mines at all your expos, and they actually synergize really well planetary, which makes anything but very commited attacks impractical.
I agree, that if it gets removed along with the new BW'ish econ, we could try and give a slight upgrade buff to the bunker instead.
|
Here is a summary of the problems described by you all regarding the Stalker & Immortal.
(If there is something I have missunderstood, or something more shall be added to the list, please tell me.)
>>>+ Show Spoiler + - Stalker, with its current weak dmg vs armored, is an unnecessary core unit in PvT. Gateway armies consists of mass Zealots, which both functions as tanky units AND damage dealer vs mech. Stalker can only take care of Vulture + Banshee.
- Stalker with high dmg vs armored can not be, because that in combination with Blink is too strong vs Lurkers + Tanks.
- Stalker leads to a boring early game in PvT, and can not really apply pressure. At least not at the Terran front door.
- Stalker, who is good vs medium and light units, makes Zerglings obsolete after the 12-15 minute mark, since Stalkers + Zealots are very strong vs Lings.
Compared to Zealots + Dragoons in BW, Zerglings saw play all throughout the game due to being very strong vs Goons.
- Stalker is unnecessary in PvZ early and early mid game. Mass Zealots can do everything ok.
- Blink Stalker leads to a snowball effect even in Starbow, just as it does in SC2. Get ahead with Blink Stalker and the enemy can not keep up.
- Stalkers can not attack "heavily" defended Terran expos - aka PF and a couple of Tanks.
- Immortal does barely benefit from micro, and can thus not be used as a realistic unit in an army composition vs mech.
- Immortal is built from the Robotic facility and is thereby hard to mass.
- Due to this, TvP is quite boring in Starbow, especially compared to how good it was in BW.
Some comments from me regarding this:
>>>+ Show Spoiler +First of all, P has no real alternative to the Stalker atm, since Immortals are so bad as they are. (Especially in terms of control.) Once Decembers Immortal solution gets implemented, we will see how it unfolds, and how it affects TvP.
- Stalker is unnecessary in PvZ early and early mid game. Mass Zealots can do everything ok.
Well, this sounds kinda like how the Dragoon had it in BW. Pure Zealots worked just fine in the early game. Why is that a problem? There are two things Z can do now: Get quick Banelings, or get Mutalisks. Isn´t this enough to punish a P who only get masses of Zealots, and instead favors a P player who mixes in Stalkers? Why are early Stalker efficient vs Z in SC2? - Stalkers can not attack "heavily" defended Terran expos - aka PF and a couple of Tanks. I don´t understand the problem here. Does P not have offensive tools? Isn´t Safeguard, who is on a very mobile and cheap caster, enough to give Stalkers cover when they assault a decently defended base?
- Stalker, who is good vs medium and light units, makes Zerglings obsolete after the 12-15 minute mark, since Stalkers + Zealots are very strong vs Lings.
Compared to Zealots + Dragoons in BW, Zerglings saw play all throughout the game due to being very strong vs Goons.
Are we certain this is the case?
Apart from this, the following stuff is also up for discussion, both here in the thread and via PMs to me:
>>>+ Show Spoiler + - Matrix removed since it is broken. (Which leaves us with no spells on the Medic)
- Marauder double attack removed/reworked
- PF removed/redesigned
- Completelty new ability added to the Stalker
- Dark Swarm removed or reworked.
- Creep spread redesign/rework, so it does not give speed bonus, but still some kind of advantage to make the creep spread worthwile.
What are the next bunch of stuff in the game that demands rework/being removed?
Unit relationships:
>>>+ Show Spoiler +Then we have opinions on how the unit relationships "should" be. What is even? What is uneven? This is just a quote I use as an example, but I hear similar but different things from the active players: I believe that with 10 chargelots a-moved vs 10 individual microed hydras, roughly 3-5 zealots should survive (?) To me it seemed that 8 zealots or something like that survived. How do we know what should and should not? How can we ever set the unit relationships? What is even and what is not even? How can we determine that? (Its not aimed specifically at you Hider. Its a general question.) Of course I can just set a unit relationship - It is like this. That is how it is. But that does not mean it is balanced. It might be very flawed, no matter who decides. Ofc play testing is the best way to know. But is that realistic when we are around 10 players? How many games must we play to know if it works or not? How do "real" developers do? They´ve must have spent 10.000 hours just play testing SC2?
My point is - All of this is time consuming. New solutions must be found, created in the editor, playtested and balanced in the game. I´ve spent over a year already on this. How much more time will it take? It will never stop. Soon player A, B, C and D will think this and that is broken, bad, needs rework, needs rebalance, needs redesign. And maybe they are right. This is why I mean this is an eternal project. Here is the ultimate dilemma:
We are not making a completely new RTS. If we did, we could replace, remove or add anything in the game. Play with every aspect of the game. Since we use Starcraft as our foundation, we are very limited, which is both good and bad. Lots of units HAVE to be in the game, and lots of stuff has to work in a certain way. Otherwise it is not Starcraft.
Here are my options:
1.) Let it be. Fix the crucial stuff and see how it works out, like Immortal and some obviously flawed things like Warp Prism speed etc. (I have a list of stuff I think is crucial.)
2. ) Let someone else take over. Someone who wanna devote a load of hours to playtest, balance, work in the editor and respond to all kinds of comments. Or maybe a team can do this. Cause I can not go on with the pace required. At least not if I need to do all the things you report to me.
3.) Go more BW - recreate the unit relationships from there etc. A fixed point to use as a reference.
I aim to get the next patch up on Friday, since I am free the entire day and evening. XiA is working on it atm. Then December will do his stuff. Then I will do some work. Then I upload it. I will most likely give the Stalker/Immortal one last chance, since December now has reworked it. Then I will probably go for the Dragoon, and work from there.
|
Of course I can just set a unit relationship - It is like this. That is how it is. But that does not mean it is balanced. It might be very flawed, no matter who decides. Ofc play testing is the best way to know. But is that realistic when we are around 10 players? How many games must we play to know if it works or not? How do "real" developers do? They´ve must have spent 10.000 hours just play testing SC2?
Well I believe that if chargelots obv rapes zerg tier 1 then it will force zerg into a very limited playstyle. But if they just kinda beat them, then it will still reward lurker play, but you won't have to rush for it.
|
On August 28 2013 20:39 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Of course I can just set a unit relationship - It is like this. That is how it is. But that does not mean it is balanced. It might be very flawed, no matter who decides. Ofc play testing is the best way to know. But is that realistic when we are around 10 players? How many games must we play to know if it works or not? How do "real" developers do? They´ve must have spent 10.000 hours just play testing SC2? Well I believe that if chargelots obv rapes zerg tier 1 then it will force zerg into a very limited playstyle. But if they just kinda beat them, then it will still reward lurker play, but you won't have to rush for it.
If we look at bw, this was not the case.
Getting a critical mass with hydralisk is not hard. And after they get that protoss needs aoe.
The choice was often storm, so now zealots+hts can go out and fight hydralisk
They did battle zealot vs hydralisk before criticalmass and before storm.
It wasnt anything like "he has many zealots, oh gosh i need lurkers"
The critical mass makes it so that protoss needs aoe
according to dec
Even with storm + zealots, hydras can fight with good micro.
Its smartcast here and if u have 10hightemplars with plenty of energy, it might be a bit to hard to micro
If we look at it like this. If zealot actually was even with hydralisk there were no "criticalmass", then protoss would probably have a really big advantage because of their aoe attacks.
------------------------
Balance - its really hard. You can never look at just one thing, you have to always considder the whole picture.
To get a whole picture you need to play ALOT. Just like kabel says.
I would love to get a decent balance atleast asap.
I suggest going for option 3. BW stuff!
To get the decent balance up there, and from there, if you stay kabel if someone comes up with a suggestion he needs
to really give lots of details.
He needs to think alot about it, and try to look at the whole picture and from there. And if there is a good idea, it seems valid.
We try it on a 'testing map' to see if it is 'fun' or 'broken' or whatnot.
----------------------------
Matrix gone is a nobrainer imo, it ruins the micro relationships in the opening to much. Equal cost terran with matrix i believe wins rather easy.
Its a nobrainer spell with no effort from terran part.
Medic spell, have you considder the spell from bw? He can remove crowdcontrol effects. I dont remember what spells excactly but i think lockdown was removable, also ensnare. 'parasite' from the queen was also removable (it gave full vision the unit gave).
The same with creepspread, it really ruins micro relationships. 'For free'.
On the field 5hydras die vs 5zealots,but on creep they can kite them relatively easy, huge advantage on creep with literally no effort (creep spread is no effort), well it takes apm but dont go there everything takes apm
I suggest to wait with darkswarm actually, its a tough spell to have but without zerg might have no chance versus terran, also darkswarm was used against protoss carriers.
So have it in, and look at a replacement in the future BUT considder everything with it
Look at why the spell is needed and against 'what' units or armee. Not just 'mech'.
For example, zerg right now have abduct, can it replace darkswarm versus carriers for example?
To get a more 'correct' picture we try abduct first, theory and practice and not just 1game.I would say atleast 50games tbh. Well, atleast 20games minimum
There are stuff, i mean small stuff that ruins alot
like planetary fortress, creepspread, matrix.
It ruins gameplay > tactic,decisions,strategy.
Its to easy to get these things, and they are to powerful and to 'boring', all at the same time
Stuff like this well who i am to say this but they need to go asap.
Either redesign or remove.
More heavy stuff like darkswarm, abduct etc, needs further testing.
Unit relationships needs also further testing
Kabel, lets say you went for bw relationships, and then fixed some minor things like creep, now if u get a suggestion, a smart suggestion. Discuss it alot with the gang here instead of blindly do it.
-------------
One last thing, protoss have a hard time versus mutas. Its not very strange
Mutas have reg and faster movementspeed from broodwar (the reg is very very huge). The reg initself blocks protoss aoe attacks alot. In bw you made a good storm, now zergs mutas was low health all, you see? Even if he kill that hightemplar his harass is almost over, atleast the harass got 'blocked' tons.
Now with reg, that storm is a waste and the templar died.
And that archon that damaged the mutas good? Dead. Did he do his job? No, cuz mutas just reg and come back
Also.
Protoss have much weaker cannons
All in all, ofcourse its hard to deal with mutas, instead of struggling so much with it, just simple make cannons back to normal and remove reg.
But instead there were big concerns about the mutas vs protoss, lots of days with this problem. And it was never fixed
when it was so 'easy' to just nerf the muta and buff back the cannon.
Would atleast make it alot more easier for protoss
Try and learn from this.
EDIT: just remember this, if the game gets a decent/good balance soon. And people gets a main race.
We all will be biased
|
On August 28 2013 20:04 Kabel wrote:
[b]
Here are my options:
1.) Let it be. Fix the crucial stuff and see how it works out, like Immortal and some obviously flawed things like Warp Prism speed etc. (I have a list of stuff I think is crucial.)
2. ) Let someone else take over. Someone who wanna devote a load of hours to playtest, balance, work in the editor and respond to all kinds of comments. Or maybe a team can do this. Cause I can not go on with the pace required. At least not if I need to do all the things you report to me.
3.) Go more BW - recreate the unit relationships from there etc. A fixed point to use as a reference.
I aim to get the next patch up on Friday, since I am free the entire day and evening. XiA is working on it atm. Then December will do his stuff. Then I will do some work. Then I upload it. I will most likely give the Stalker/Immortal one last chance, since December now has reworked it. Then I will probably go for the Dragoon, and work from there.
Let it be is my answer. Let Xia and Dec do their stuff. Maybe we need some number balance after that since some units will move and act a bit differently. And then, let it be. Let's "reliese" it and see if it catches on and can live a life of its own.
@ Foxxan Photon canons.
Canones are worse because you can chrono them. We nerfed them not too long ago because they could defend too well vs vultures. They hav, actually more HP than bw canons and nice dps once they are chronoed which makes defending a bit more fun and decision based.
|
I really liked the idea of the immortal + stalker, but I guess its too hard to balance.
On the other hand the Dragoon might be even harder to balance due to Warp gates being given such a powerful unit all of a sudden.
This was the reason Immortals stayed on robo tech, and I really don't see how it can work for Dragoons either. Its simply too hard to justify the ability to get a strong fighting unit in masse at any point on the map you can get temporary control of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
