EPT[A] Starbow - Page 393
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
JohnnyZerg
Italy378 Posts
| ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
In BW it was 9/3/1 http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Mutalisk_(StarCraft) As Alphasquads point out: This attack system is not worth it for units besides Immortal and Hydralisk. Goliaths, marines and maurauders reallly doesn't need to have a lag-effect. Speedlings vs marines IMO doesn't become that interesting just because Marines needs to wait before they can move back. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
I have a reeeeeally accurate BW->SC2 conversion rate. Matched up a 1000 build time zealot in BW with an 880 build time zealot in SC2. What happened is that the liquipedia entry BT number for larva is in real time ^^. So larva time to be accurate=a little slower than a drone. Right now if we want it to be accurate it will be set to 19.5. Any lower, it pops out too soon, any faster vice versa. I will be recalculating every single BT (remembering not to accidentally scroll past a requirement because that bugs them out). Then I will test to make sure the BW time was correct by testing each tech tree alongside our version. So don't think Z is imba just yet. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
The marine is honestly really close to BW, but then BW didn't have banelings to deal with. Plus I can't see it hurting too much to make it more agile than BW's version. What the root during attack does it make it harder to actually nullify the advantage of sim city or a ramp. Forcing yourself up a ramp against two spines crawlers for instance. But you are right it still needs tweaks (especially to hydra and the goliath). edit:tweaking a new method. The old method just doesn't tweak properly. What it did was remove the units speed. Problem is that no matter how short I set the duriation for the behavior that removes the speed it still lingers for like a second. No wonder nothing felt as agile as I was trying to get them to be. I've already built a new method, writing down numbers for each one to get closer to BW. Something also to keep in mind is that BW units had slower turning speed. They didn't 180 instantly meaning that retreating fire would make them root longer than advancing fire. I don't think we need to replicate this. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
Ran some tests, and I still think there is an issue with the Scout relative to the stalker in terms of its dominance vs mech. Lets look at the unit dynamics. First lets start with the direct unit vs unit relationships. Vs. Vultures --> Both units do really well vs vulture. Stalkers obv have better DPS vs them but are vulnerable to mines. Stalkers are also less mobile (kinda neutralized with blink) than scouts and vultures does 20 damage to shield vs stalkers. Overall, I would argue that Vultures have an easier time vs Stalkers than vs Scouts. Part of this problem though arises due to the fact that Immortals deals too much damage vs Vultures, which means that Vultures doesn't really function properly as a buffer unit and thus having Stalkers in battle isn't neccesary. Vs goliaths: Both units are kinda bad. Stalkers trade somewhat evenly vs Goliaths and Scouts loses to them. Vs tanks: Scouts hard-counter them obviously. Tanks hardcounter stalkers. Vs banshees --> Scout better than stalker Vs dropships --> Scout better than stalker Vs BC --> Scout better than stalker. Vs SV's --> Scout better than stalker. Overall, the Scout is just much more efficient vs mech units than the stalker is. This doesn't even take into account that in real games, the Scouts fares even better. Like imagine what would happen after a battle. Chances are that all your stalkers are simply dead and thus can't really be used. But let's for assume that you have 6-7 blink stalkers surviving. What are you gonna do with them? They can't do shit vs reinforcing tanks. On the other hand, it is typical that after a battle opponents defense turrets and goliaths are dead, which means 4-5 Scouts can simply clean up the remaining army. But that's not even it. The problems are much larger than this when you take into account the indirect costs; The presense of stalkers on the map doesn't really worry the mech player. Obviously stalkers are mobile but he isn't gonna play differently compared to if opponent just had mass immortals/zealots. Scouts on the other hand has the following effect on the mech terran player; - Forces him to build up a lot of turrets - Forces him to get a lot of goliaths around the map. Since the protoss player due to its mobility can attack everywhere, terran must have Goliaths everywhere --> Terran mech player is much less cost efficient vs pure immortal + zealots. - Forces terran in defense. Protoss can take the whole map really. Terran still can't really attack/harass very easily. So to sum up; Scout is just extremely dominant relative to blink stalkers. IMO we just need to back to BW cost values, cus untill then I don't see any way you wanna mix in Stalkers vs mech. Thus, I suggest that we increase cost of the Scout to 275/125 from 175/125. Are banshees imbalanced vs stalkers? Yes probably, and I think we should consider to reduce HP of them a bit if/when Scouts gets further nerfed. Is the combo of siegepick and speeddropships imbalanced vs stalkers. Yes probably, and I have suggested a solution previously to this issue. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
They didn't 180 instantly meaning that retreating fire would make them root longer than advancing fire. I don't think we need to replicate this. the future dragoon disapproves | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
 Dragoon was obviously exempt from this in BW.Blizz doesn't have built in functionality for what I want to do. I can make a really smooth hydra, but I can't make it so that if a hydra starts his attack he must finish it (no move command to make him accidentally stop before finished). | ||
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
On September 07 2013 01:23 Hider wrote: Problem: Scout still dominates the Stalker vs terran Ran some tests, and I still think there is an issue with the Scout relative to the stalker in terms of its dominance vs mech. Lets look at the unit dynamics. First lets start with the direct unit vs unit relationships. Vs. Vultures --> Both units do really well vs vulture. Stalkers obv have better DPS vs them but are vulnerable to mines. Stalkers are also less mobile (kinda neutralized with blink) than scouts and vultures does 20 damage to shield vs stalkers. Overall, I would argue that Vultures have an easier time vs Stalkers than vs Scouts. Part of this problem though arises due to the fact that Immortals deals too much damage vs Vultures, which means that Vultures doesn't really function properly as a buffer unit and thus having Stalkers in battle isn't neccesary. Vs goliaths: Both units are kinda bad. Stalkers trade somewhat evenly vs Goliaths and Scouts loses to them. Vs tanks: Scouts hard-counter them obviously. Tanks hardcounter stalkers. Vs banshees --> Scouts much better here. Vs dropships --> Scouts much better. Vs BC --> Scout wins. Vs SV's --> Scout wins. Overall, the Scout is just much more efficient vs mech units than the stalker is. This doesn't even take into account that in real games, the Scouts fares even better. Like imagine what would happen after a battle. Chances are that all your stalkers are simply dead and thus can't really be used. But let's for assume that you have 6-7 blink stalkers surviving. What are you gonna do with them? They can't do shit vs reinforcing tanks. On the other hand, it is typical that after a battle opponents defense turrets and goliaths are dead, which means 4-5 Scouts can simply clean up the remaining army. But that's not even it. The problems are much larger than this when you take into account the indirect costs; The presense of stalkers on the map doesn't really worry the mech player. Obviously stalkers are mobile but he isn't gonna play differently compared to if opponent just had mass immortals/zealots. Scouts on the other hand has the following effect on the mech terran player; - Forces him to build up a lot of turrets - Forces him to get a lot of goliaths around the map. Since the protoss player due to its mobility can attack everywhere, terran must have Goliaths everywhere --> Terran mech player is much less cost efficient vs pure immortal + zealots. - Forces terran in defense. Protoss can take the whole map really. Terran still can't really attack/harass very easily. So to sum up; Scout is just extremely dominant relative to blink stalkers. IMO we just need to back to BW cost values, cus untill then I don't see any way you wanna mix in Stalkers vs mech. Thus, I suggest that we increase cost of the Scout to 275/125 from 175/125. Are banshees imbalanced vs stalkers? Yes probably, and I think we should consider to reduce HP of them a bit if/when Scouts gets further nerfed. Is the combo of siegepick and speeddropships imbalanced vs stalkers. Yes probably, and I have suggested a solution previously to this issue. Vikings? You know the mobile air unit that is designed to beat other air in numbers, and force splitting. We do got room for buffing them if needed. Making stalkers relevant vs mech is a lost cause IMO. You are talking about the armored unit that is suposed to suck the most vs everything, against the playstyle that focuses on the unit designed to rock the world of everything armored(On the ground). It is like going Lings vs Air. Not suposed to work. The scout should be the preferred choice really. Also what is wrong with forcing mech to build turrets? That playstyle is suposed to have spare minerals anyway. Vultures aren't going to do anything vs Scouts so might aswell build turrets. We can't design protoss to be too dependant on the stalker, it is just too versatile for that. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On September 07 2013 01:48 decemberscalm wrote: Dragoon was obviously exempt from this in BW.Blizz doesn't have built in functionality for what I want to do. I can make a really smooth hydra, but I can't make it so that if a hydra starts his attack he must finish it (no move command to make him accidentally stop before finished). Hmmm thats so sad! Work harder dec!! | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On September 07 2013 02:06 Sumadin wrote: Vikings? You know the mobile air unit that is designed to beat other air in numbers, and force splitting. We do got room for buffing them if needed. Making stalkers relevant vs mech is a lost cause IMO. You are talking about the armored unit that is suposed to suck the most vs everything, against the playstyle that focuses on the unit designed to rock the world of everything armored(On the ground). It is like going Lings vs Air. Not suposed to work. The scout should be the preferred choice really. Also what is wrong with forcing mech to build turrets? That playstyle is suposed to have spare minerals anyway. Vultures aren't going to do anything vs Scouts so might aswell build turrets. We can't design protoss to be too dependant on the stalker, it is just too versatile for that. Wrong really. Stalker isn't as bad as you make it out to be. It has high dps vs vulture. Actually it is totally the other way around; We can't design the game around protoss having a really strong air unit that allows it to do everything. Relative to BW that is a gigantigc buff. And basically it just makes a core unit (the stalker) useless as Scouts dominates it. And sry to say, but I don't think you understand the issue here if you suggest Viking. Besides being cost ineffective vs Scouts, it doesn't solve any of the issues mentioned here. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
Blizz hates me man. Blizz hates me. Anything I ever want to do I have to make the silliest most bullshit work around ever. x.x | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
On September 07 2013 02:10 Hider wrote: Wrong really. Stalker isn't as bad as you make it out to be. It has high dps vs vulture. Actually it is totally the other way around; We can't design the game around protoss having a really strong air unit that allows it to do everything. Relative to BW that is a gigantigc buff. And basically it just makes a core unit (the stalker) useless as Scouts dominates it. And sry to say, but I don't think you understand the issue here if you suggest Viking. Besides being cost ineffective vs Scouts, it doesn't solve any of the issues mentioned here. I quite understand the issue. But if there were an easy access counter to the Scout, that wasn't a counter to the stalker then that would force a game of compusitions, which would lead to a more skillful and varied play. The viking is such a counter or at least it got the potential to be.that if it isn't right now. We can buff their range post-upgrade, give them a slight speed advantage. The unit is kinda underused so we should have room. It doesn't really matter that much if they are cost ineffective, as long as they are moderately supply effective. Or if they are at least able to buy some time for the Goliaths to arrive. Plenty of options. Mechs weakness have always been Air play. That is their tradeoff for doing terrible terrible damage vs everything ground. Mutas are widely used vs mech aswell in much the same way, no problems here. As long as the Bio style forces the Zerg/Protoss to adjust the style due to the much better air control that marines offer. Then it is not really a "One-unit beats all" unit. Just a unit that beats mech... Or does better than the Stalker/Hydra at least. Still didn't answer what was wrong with turrets btw. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Mechs weakness have always been Air play ? | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
I thought it was drops/immobility. Coulda fooled me. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
On September 07 2013 02:35 Sumadin wrote: I quite understand the issue. But if there were an easy access counter to the Scout, that wasn't a counter to the stalker then that would force a game of compusitions, which would lead to a more skillful and varied play. The viking is such a counter or at least it got the potential to be.that if it isn't right now. We can buff their range post-upgrade, give them a slight speed advantage. The unit is kinda underused so we should have room. It doesn't really matter that much if they are cost ineffective, as long as they are moderately supply effective. Or if they are at least able to buy some time for the Goliaths to arrive. Plenty of options. Mechs weakness have always been Air play. That is their tradeoff for doing terrible terrible damage vs everything ground. Mutas are widely used vs mech aswell in much the same way, no problems here. As long as the Bio style forces the Zerg/Protoss to adjust the style due to the much better air control that marines offer. Then it is not really a "One-unit beats all" unit. Just a unit that beats mech... Or does better than the Stalker/Hydra at least. Still didn't answer what was wrong with turrets btw. Air play in it self isn't the issue. The issue is investing relatively few ressourcs into an air unit that allows you to obtain extreme benefits. This is problematic for 3 reasons; 1) It fucks up the balance of the game where we are trying to use BW as the core game and then give various plusses to each race. Relative to BW, Scout is A) Faster, B) Has Phase Missile, C) Is 100 minerals cheaper. D) A bit less cost inefficient in AA fight. Adding it all up, Scout is a lot stronger vs terran than in BW which gives Protoss a big plus if we look at this isolated. Terran has relative to BW gotten stronger dropships and stronger air harass (banshee over Wraith). However, the problem here is that Scout counters both these options, leaving terrans plusses basically neutralized. Thus, I don't believe we can have a balanced game when Scouts are this strong. 2) It makes a core unit (the stalker) completley useless vs terran mech. This is awfull design. 3) It has lots of boring hard-counter based interactions. Balance issues aside, Blink stalkers vs banshees + dropships is a lot more interesting for instance. So adding it all up, the Scout need a big nerf. I suggest we buff its AA damage vs armored and increase mineral cost by 100. This way you won't be so heavily rewarded for getting out Scouts vs terran every game. Instead, it will be good vs; 1) Medis. 2) SV's. 3) BC's. Compare this to the current list of terran units it is efficient against; 1) Tanks 2) Vultures 3) Sv's 4) Medis 5) Maurauders 6) Dropships 7) Banshees 8) BC's 9) Vikings Still didn't answer what was wrong with turrets btw Thsi is why I believe you didn't understand the issue here. There is no problem with this in it self. The problem is that Scout is better in direct combat vs other units (than the stalker) and it also forces a lot of indirect costs, such as turrets and Goliaths. Adding up both of them together, and we have a broken unit. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
Or maybe this is intentional? | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On September 07 2013 03:22 Hider wrote: Btw I think BT's on Stalker range upgrade, Blink and Charge are bugged (they are too fast). Or maybe this is intentional? BT on a lot of tech research had been buffed. Charge and Stim both come out quicker. Same with goon speed, siege tech. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
The Stalker is not the new goddamn Dragoon. Is no one listening? Immortals are the new Dragoon. Immortals are the counter to Lurker Tech. Instead of going through these crazy convoluted dances of tweaking damage on all these units and giving detection to the Sentinel while it's in the Stargate to free up Robo production time from Observers to Immortals in the Robo etc. etc. all we have to do is: Move Immortal to Gateway. Move Sentinel to Robo. Give 'Oracle Detection Spell' back to the Scout, nerf cost-effectiveness in exchange. Buff Stalker AA. Then we have: The Immortal where it belongs, for design reasons, for flavor reasons, for BW dynamics reasons. The Sentinel where it belongs: Less overlap with Arbiter, a caster in each tech path, for flavor reasons. Detection in two tech paths, Psi Storm in the third. A more interesting AA dynamic with Stalkers than Scouts. @Hider You said the reason you don't want Sentinel in Robo is because you like a harass option in each path, but Stargate already has Corsair and Scout? Why do we need a production facility with three different Air to Ground attack units (including Graviton Beam for Corsair of course)? Why buff Sentinels direct damage versus Queens when they can already plant Null Wards, and when Corsairs can lift them into Scout fire? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
You said the reason you don't want Sentinel in Robo is because you like a harass option in each path, but Stargate already has Corsair and Scout? Why do we need a production facility with three different Air to Ground attack units (including Graviton Beam for Corsair of course)? Why buff Sentinels direct damage versus Queens when they can already plant Null Wards, and when Corsairs can lift them into Scout fire? That's exactly the problem. If you go Robo (with sentinel) you can harass in the same way as if you go Stargate. Thus, it doesn't matter (as terarn) wheterh you scout robo tech or stargate tech. You will/can face the same type of harass (air-based). I believe harass should be different dependant on what type of tech you are getting. Each tech pattern should have its weakness's and strenghts, and if move Sentinel to Robo we risk undermining that concept. Is no one listening? Immortals are the new Dragoon. Immortals are the counter to Lurker Tech. Noone is saying that. Instead of going through these crazy convoluted dances of tweaking damage on all these units and giving detection to the Sentinel while it's in the Stargate to free up Robo production time from Observers to Immortals in the Robo etc. etc. all we have to do is: There is no easy way here. You will have to spend a lot of time tweaking stats regardless of what solution is used. | ||
| ||
