EPT[A] Starbow - Page 396
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
| ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Cleaned up some BT inconsistencies with the new conversion rate. The old conversion rate was still reaaaaally close to this already, so I didn't go through every single number just the most important ones like workers/units/important research. Buffed goliath autocannon attack rate by from 1.5 to 1.4. (it was underperforming vs BW's goliath). That still might be just a tiny bit lower than BW, but its a lot closer. Reworked the micro system: hydras, goliaths, and marines should all be more agile. Mutalisk bounce bug fixed. Larva set to 19.5 (players will complain they can't just kill Terran with lings anymore I promise you). Attack animations cleaned up a bit for marines and goliaths. Marauder "firerauder" friendly fire removed. As for testing: Irradiate, storm, charge, stim, stalker range, upgrades, overlord speed/drop, have all been tested and properly match up to BW. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
So I thought a bit further about the Immortal issue, and I think I now properly understood why it can't work at Robo. Let's try to use a realistic ingame scenario where both players play relatively well and where protoss doesn't abuse Scouts. 1) Both players open fast expand, protoss goes for warp prism harass on 1 gate --> Robo --> Protoss kills a few workers and forces out two goliaths --> He gets a bit ahead. 2) Protoss scouts a relatively quick Starport with tech lab out of 2 bases from the terran player --> Protoss reacts by A) Throwing down a forge, B) a twilight for blink, C) then 2-3 more gateways as he needs multiple Stalkers to defend against harass while on 3 bases, D) A cannon at each mineral line, E) Gets 2-3 more observers out of Robo facilitiy Since these players are good, the banshee's did relatively little direct damage as the protoss player defended well. However, in terms of indirect damage they caused the game to at least be even in terms of army value (given the fact that toss came slightly ahead early game). But now the real problem arises, protoss has never been able to afford enough Robo buildings. Its very possible that he just has 1-2 Robo's, leaving his Immortal count really low in the midgame. So there is a double punishment for protoss; 1) Bad mix of units and 2) Bad mix of infastructure. Thus, besides being stuck with a bad army in terms of straight engagements (heavy stalkers), he won't really be able to get out enough Immortals to put out any type of pressure within the next 1-2 minutes. Alternatively he may just die to a timing attack follow up from the terran player. Simply put, I believe the Immortal at Robo can never work as it gives protoss a way too inflexible production, which causes a gigantic assymetric balance relative to BW. Ofc. protoss can choose to not play straight up, and simply go for the imbalanced Scouts. But then the balance switch the other way around. 1 Stargate + 3-4 Scouts does a much better job of defending banshee harass than 10 blink stalkers. Further it forces terran to get out more goliats and put out turrets of him self to defend against them. Thus, now terran is the one who needs to invest heavily in infastructure and change his unit composition to an inefficient one, which makes him much weaker. Suggested changes to balance the matchup in a more clean way 1) Scout cost increased to 275/125 from 175/125. Build time increased to 80 seconds from 60 seconds. AA damage vs armored (not its damage vs medium and light) buffed to maintain its cost efficiency as an AA unit. 2) Immortal moved to gateway. Range upgrade cost at Cyber Core increased to 200/200 and benefits both Immortals and Stalkers. 3) Planetary removed - Besides leading to less multitasking it also breakes the BW balance by giving terran an unfair advantage on some maps (espeically Match Point). 4) Sentinel Safeguard reworked. It now reduces damage above 8 by 75%. This means that if tanks would have dealt 60 damage to a certain unit. The tank now deals 8 + 0.25 *(60-8) = 21. Thus, Safeguard becomes much less of a hardcounter and the punishment if less if your caught without enough Goliaths to target fire it down. What this hopefully will accomplish - Scouts are no longer extremely superior to blink Stalkers. Scouts are still good vs SV's and BC's though. - Infastructure costs of protoss are reduced in the midgame --> They can have more stuff out. - Protoss now has a much more flexible production which means it becoems less likely that they will be stuck with the "wrong" units for a long time. Protoss can now fight terran much better in straight up engagements in the midgame. - Terran now needs to spread them selves more thinly. They can't just take all their entire army and rely on planetary for defense vs counterattack. - Sentinel is no longer a neccesary unit for balancing the game, but an optional one that good protoss players can take advantage of to become slightly more cost efficient. - Relative to BW, optimizing your unit composition based on what your opponent is doing is more rewarded. Protoss no longer blindly builds one unit, but tries to mix in the correct mix of stalkers and Immortals. But while this previously was way too costly for the protoss player in terms of indirect costs, it is now hopefully a lot more balanced. The same concept is applied the other way around for terran. While they previously had to invest too much into anti-air stuff, it now becomes a bit more fair for him as well. Overall, I believe this leads to more depht into the gameplay with more variety relative to BW. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
However, I simply didn't take into account the double-cost of having an inflexible infastructure and having weaker stalkers into your composition. The double-cost is really what breakes the matchup atm. The agressive 8fac versus agressive 8gateway matches, that fights for mapcontrol, expansions. That pressures and harasses each others bases. So my suggestions will try to get us closer to have type of gameplay I believe, but please be aware that it takes time for a metagame to be established. In the beginning new builds needs to be refined, scouting techniques and optimal responses takes time to learn and those games early on will seem more chaotic than once the metagame is established. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
If we look at the BW balance, Protoss has a strong anti-armored ranged unit in the Gateway. In Starbow P does not. So the easiest approach to balance is to make sure P has that aswell in Starbow. This would help to fill a gigantic hole in the current balance. Two ways: 1) Bring back Dragoon 2) Add Immortal to the Gateway I prefer option two. By having the Dragoon divided into two units - Stalker & Immortal, we get more room for various unit compositions, play styles and variations. Gateway/Warp gate >>>+ Show Spoiler + Gateway: Zealot, Stalker, Immortal, HT and DT Warp gate: Zealot, Stalker, DT (Maybe HT?) Stalker & Immortal both requires Cybernetic core. I am not a fan of both units being exactly equal in the tech tree. But I guess there is no other realistic way. I do not think Immortals should be warped in, due to balance reasons. It is a gigantic advantage for late game Protoss. To give a further advantage to both units, Immortal dmg can be slightly decreased vs medium, but slightly increased vs armored. (Which has already been discussed) Dragoons cost 125/50 in BW. It is a lot of firepower and toughness for that money. That is also what the Stalker cost atm. Maybe can Stalker cost be reduced to 100/50, and remain quite fragile. (Revert dmg vs medium from 16 to 14 or 15?) Immortal can remain at 150/75, but are on the hand stronger than Dragoons were. Thus both units are above and below the Dragoon in cost and power level, and in advantages and disadvantages Where to put the range upgrades? >>>+ Show Spoiler + The easiest way is probably to either give seperate range upgrades at the cybernetic core, OR give one expensive upgrade that affects both the Stalker and Immortal. My main concern with this is PvP. Why would one favor to build Stalkers over Immortals? Why not just mass Immortals & Zealots and then add in higher tech units? If air units become a threat in PvP, then Stalkers gain some kind of role at least. And they are better than Immortals vs Zealots. But is that enough to justify it as a useful unit in the early/mid game? One way to give an advantage to Stalker is to let their range upgrade make them able to barely outrange Immortals. If Immortals just rape Stalkers 100% of the time in all combats, Stalkers will probably not see much play. One way to approach this is to let the Stalker range upgrade "unlock" the seperate Immortal range upgrade. This makes Stalkers have a range advantage over Immortals in the early/mid game, and can thus fight. Later in the game, once Immortal gets their range upgrade, Stalkers will probably become less useful in the army. (But in the late game Stalkers still benefits from Blink and Warp in, which helps it become more of a harass unit?) Example: - Stalker range costs 100/100 and takes 140 seconds to finish at the Cyber core. Increases Stalker range from 4 to 6. (Roughly as we have now) - Immortal range upgrade costs ca 150/150 and takes ca 180-220 seconds to finish. Increases range from 5 to 7. Requires the Stalker range upgrade. Is this a realistic approach? What about the Robo and Stargate? >>>+ Show Spoiler + The Robotics facility will now only build 3 units, while the Stargate builds 5. I consider to bring back the Sentinel to the Robo. Thus it will look like this: Robotic facility - Observer, Warp Prism, Sentinel and Reaver. (Safeguard upgrade at Robotic bay) Stargate - Scout, Corsair, Carrier, Arbiter Scout: I agree that BT & cost should be increased, so it does not outclass Stalkers. But I do not want to make it as worthless as it was in BW. Early Stargate openings will probably only see play in PvZ due to Corsairs vs Muta. It would be nice if early Stargate was sometimes viable/decent in PvT and PvP too. (Even without the Sentinel in it) Just to broaden potential build orders / openings. Impossible to do without having unintended consequenses for the match-ups? Is the "mana burn" ability (Phase Missile) a problem if it is on a flying unit, either Scout or Sentinel? Too easy to deny Vessels who protects the border vs Arbiters? Atm the mana burn missile ability on Scout drains 100 energy and has a 60 second cooldown. Maybe can the missile become dodgeable. Sentinel and Safeguard: >>>+ Show Spoiler + The Sentinel is the only custom made unit in the game. As I have said before, it was added as an attempt to solve some problems we had in mainly TvP and PvZ a few months ago. It is probably not "needed" anymore. But if we can get it to fit into the game, I think it can help to broaden the match-ups a bit. So I do not want to scrap it yet. My main issue with it is Safeguard. The concept is IMO ok - "protect" target area for X seconds. If the Sentinel is destroyed, the effect cancels. The problem is that there is no realistic counter play from the enemy. Dark Swarm forces both micro and macro reactions from T and P in BW - get Zealots, Firebats, Vulture with Spider mines etc. What can anyone do vs heavy Sentinel + Safeguard play? Start to mix in Marines all of a sudden? Add in Vikings? There must be some more interesting effect to add to Safeguard. It currently reduces all attacks above 10 to 10 to units in the area. If it reduces attacks by a % value, isn´t that the same issue? It is good vs everything? If we want it to be a spell that supports smaller groups of units, we can decrease the energy cost from 100 to 75. Smaller area of effect. Harder to cover the main army. Easier to cover hit squads more often, due to lower energy regeneration time required. Summary of my questions: - What to do with the range upgrade/upgrades for Stalker & Immortal? - How to make sure Stalkers play a role in PvP? - Is it annoying to have different units being built from the Gateway / Warpgate? (Immortal) - What to do with the Stargate to make it a decent tech option in the early/mid game in PvP and PvT? (Without Sentinel in it) - What to do with Safeguard? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
I do not think Immortals should be warped in, due to balance reasons. It is a gigantic advantage for late game Protoss. I don't think so. We previously tried the mix warp tech and gateway thing and it just doesn't work as it is way too mentally draining on protoss players. If you do this, then warp tech will basically just be uselss. Warp tech isn't that strong atm due to 12-seconds warp in time. We could further adjust this warp in time specifically for the Immortal. LIke 16 seconds for the Immortal maybe? Early Stargate openings will probably only see play in PvZ due to Corsairs vs Muta. It would be nice if early Stargate was sometimes viable/decent in PvT and PvP too. (Even without the Sentinel in it) Just to broaden potential build orders / openings. Impossible to do without having unintended consequenses for the match-ups? Is the "mana burn" ability (Phase Missile) a problem if it is on a flying unit, either Scout or Sentinel? Too easy to deny Vessels who protects the border vs Arbiters? Atm the mana burn missile ability on Scout drains 100 energy and has a 60 second cooldown. Maybe can the missile become dodgeable. I think the mana drain thing is not OP in it self, but when you combine it with all the other stuff the Scout does so well it feels really strong. We could ofc consider to make it more similar to Seeker Missile (dodgeable). This may make it a bit weak though if we also increase its cost to 275/125 (I don't think we should go for a middleway here btw. It currently is a so much superior to stalkers that anything below 275/125 likely won't cut it). To balance it we could make its splash damage to nearby friendly units a bit higher. I do wonder though - IS it really neccesary that Sentinel gets moved to Robo? Yes, Robo won't have any units produeable untill tier 3 then, but it still has utility due to observer and Warp prism. Stargate on the other hand will be quite weak without Sentinel in the early midgame when Scouts gets nerfed. Why would one favor to build Stalkers over Immortals? Why not just mass Immortals & Zealots and then add in higher tech units? We can still consider to make Immortal a bit weaker vs Light and Medium (and a bit stronger vs armored), which will give the Stalker a clear role in the matchup (to beat zealots). The problem is that there is no realistic counter play from the enemy. Dark Swarm forces both micro and macro reactions from T and P in BW - get Zealots, Firebats, Vulture with Spider mines etc. What can anyone do vs heavy Sentinel + Safeguard play? Start to mix in Marines all of a sudden? Add in Vikings? Sentinel + Safeguard has two effects on what the terran player does; --> Gets Goliaths (+SV's perhaps) - Unit compostion effect --> Tries to target fire (EMP) Sentinels --> Micro effect This is absolutely fine design IMO. Previously the problem was that you couldn't realitialy target fire the Sentinel due to range and too much HP. Not sure though if the recent nerf is big enough. Its possible that its range should be even lower. But, nevertheless I think the effect is too heavy. If terran is caught without enough Goliaths to target fire the Sentinels then protss cost efficiency basically doubles which means that we are balancing the game around the Sentinel. So IMO it just needs to be less extreme. | ||
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Denmark697 Posts
I would also suggest making Robo a requirement for building Immortals, making Stalkers have a much greater use in the early game and keeping the current Immortal timings intact. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + I don't think so. We previously tried the mix warp tech and gateway thing and it just doesn't work as it is way too mentally draining on protoss players. If you do this, then warp tech will basically just be uselss. Warp tech isn't that strong atm due to 12-seconds warp in time. We could further adjust this warp in time specifically for the Immortal. LIke 16 seconds for the Immortal maybe? What was it that caused frustration for Gateway/Warp gate having 1 different unit? What was it in the Gateway/Warp gate management that made it hard? I am mainly concerned with Warp in Immortals in TvP. It takes away one crucial aspect of mech play: Cut off routes on the map with mine field / tanks. P will always be able to get his army exactly where he wants. If he has good scouting, and places Pylons across the map, he will always be able to get up his army in reaction to what Mech does. Which punishes Terran who spreads himself thin? It makes it harder for T to get back in a game if P is ahead in the late game? Every type of T harass/attack can now be dealt via Warp in. No matter where on the map it happens. That issue is however removed if P can only warp in decent combat units. @Sentinel + Show Spoiler + I do wonder though - IS it really neccesary that Sentinel gets moved to Robo? Yes, Robo won't have any units produeable untill tier 3 then, but it still has utility due to observer and Warp prism. Stargate on the other hand will be quite weak without Sentinel in the early midgame when Scouts gets nerfed. I am torn here aswell. The Robo will maybe feel "empty" with only three units. But if Robotic facility is a tech requirement for Immortals at Gateway, as Zaphod suggests.. Indirectly it "unlocks" a forth unit. Also seperates Stalker/Immortal a little bit more in the tech tree.. But is this a strange thing? All other production structures in the game unlocks units who are built IN that structure. @PvP + Show Spoiler + We can still consider to make Immortal a bit weaker vs Light and Medium (and a bit stronger vs armored), which will give the Stalker a clear role in the matchup (to beat zealots). Yeah maybe that will be enough. Why not jus Zealot as a response to enemy Zealots? Immortal as response to enemy Immortals? But I guess this is a thing we just need to try in PvPs to see how it looks. December has done some additional work in the editor with bug fixes etc. So I will have it uploaded for tonight. Maybe 3-4 hours from now. I want to reach a better decision regarding the current Protoss issue first. Something that seems good and complete enough to make it worthwile to try it in the game. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
What was it that caused frustration for Gateway/Warp gate having 1 different unit? What was it in the Gateway/Warp gate management that made it hard? That your forced to macro out of both gateways and warp tech which is a big mess for the brain when it is totally trained to not do that. P will always be able to get his army exactly where he wants. If he has good scouting, and places Pylons across the map, he will always be able to get up his army in reaction to what Mech does True, but now warp tech is late game only and we have also nerfed it quite considerably. I think 16-seconds Immortal will give warp tech protoss players the advantage of faster reaction + better positioning to various late game attacks, but it will be at the expense of much slower production. I thikn that tradeoff is pretty okay'ish. Further a big part of the old warp tech probllem was strenghtened by the combiantion of the old Sbow econ and Vultures being quite bad vs Stalkers + Cannons (Now Spider mines + full damage to shiled give terran a decent buff in temrs of mobility). I would also suggest making Robo a requirement for building Immortals, making Stalkers have a much greater use in the early game and keeping the current Immortal timings intact. Not sure this is necesary if Immortal build time is increased (which it probably will once it gets moved to Gateway), but as Kabel points out, it will make you feel like Robo (without robo bay) gives you a new unit which I kinda like. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
Play testing has shown you do need an immortal relatively quickly, but if they are both unlocked at the same time you can choice between things like overlord denial (stalker first), better vs bio or better vs fast tank. Immos first will obviously be at odds with a player rushing air tech. I don't see any benefit for adding in the weird recquirement of robotics got the gate tech immo. If it it seemed super beneficial for game play then it might call for an odd requirement akin to overseer speed boost at lair, or armor/tech lab tech goliath. Not convinced of that though. @Warp in immo Definitely agree with you on this. Vultures can make quick work of warping in zealots, okay damage vs stalker, but can also mine vs stalker if really needed (we all know how effective mines are against a target that can't shoot back or dodge). Hmmm, immo might not be a HUGE problem for harass defence if the warp in takes too long. Vultures 2 shot workers. If you warp in an immortal three vultures will already have cleared a mineral line if you didn't pull them or react with units nearby. Oh, one big problem, it will draw the fire of the vultures which would be really annoying and require a lot of spam clicking on the workers to make the vultures effective. @Sentinel Range nerf or a weaker safegaurd somehow. It could be the most fragile unit in the world and it wouldn't matter because hes attacking you with zealots=goliaths can't target it down. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
Play testing has shown you do need an immortal relatively quickly, but if they are both unlocked at the same time you can choice between things like overlord denial (stalker first), better vs bio or better vs fast tank. Immos first will obviously be at odds with a player rushing air tech. I think atm. you need either fast Robo or Stargate after your first gateway as protoss. So you can still delay your robo and go for a stalker + Sentinel opening (if Sentinel stays at stargate which I believe it should). I don't see any benefit for adding in the weird recquirement of robotics got the gate tech immo. If it it seemed super beneficial for game play then it might call for an odd requirement akin to overseer speed boost at lair, or armor/tech lab tech goliath. Not convinced of that though. Indeed, it is quite a weird requirement and probably unneceasry. Range nerf or a weaker safegaurd somehow. Both probably. Hmmm, immo might not be a HUGE problem for harass defence if the warp in takes too long. Vultures 2 shot workers. If you warp in an immortal three vultures will already have cleared a mineral line if you didn't pull them or react with units nearby. Oh, one big problem, it will draw the fire of the vultures which would be really annoying and require a lot of spam clicking on the workers to make the vultures effective. Vultures just kills the Immortals while warping in. I really think warp-in defense in general is quite bad atm (which is good). IMO the largest issue is the reinforcement problem. Protoss army trades --> Reinforcements comes quicker than for terran --> Game ends. But I think we can test it, see how it feels and then just remove warp tech if it is broken. Yeah maybe that will be enough. Why not jus Zealot as a response to enemy Zealots? Immortal as response to enemy Immortals? But I guess this is a thing we just need to try in PvPs to see how it looks. Stalkers kite slowzealots and deal good DPS vs them. Immortals have worse DPS vs them. I think this dynamic can work with the right stats values. Thinking about it, I would actually like that Stalker and Immortal range were two seperate at 100/100 each. This gives more build order variety. Protoss player goes for stalker range upgrade first --> He can harass better (in all matchups) but at the expense of being a being a bit vulnerable to certain timings. Protoss player goes for Immortal upgrade first --> He is better in a straight up fight and usually more safe unless opponent goes for stuff like reaper harass or perhaps 1 base banshees. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
My main issue I see here. Immo is 1.3x the stats of a dragoon. 4 Tank hits instead of 3. 1.3x the damage output. Plus, you need less of them in a good position to deal the same amount of damage. Mabye if it was like 1.1x the stats of a dragoon and had a small size decrease. Also remember that BT must be adjusted. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
On September 07 2013 23:07 decemberscalm wrote: @Immortal My main issue I see here. Immo is 1.3x the stats of a dragoon. 4 Tank hits instead of 3. 1.3x the damage output. Plus, you need less of them in a good position to deal the same amount of damage. Mabye if it was like 1.1x the stats of a dragoon and had a small size decrease. Also remember that BT must be adjusted. I think its a BT issue. Should have 1.3* BT of Dragoon at gateway. EDIT: Hmm though that seems kinda like a lot. Would be like 65 seconds. I think we need to stick with less like 50-55 seconds due to protoss players not being able to mass Immortals like you could mass Dragoons in BW. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
On September 07 2013 23:20 decemberscalm wrote: And if you have a 1.1x dragoon as IMMO you really don't need to increase the BT that much. Shouldn't be increased at all then IMO due the "stalker nerf". But I don't think it really matters whether it is 1.3 or 1.1 or 1.0. Protoss players just needs to be able to produce a good army size in the midgame that can fight terran straight up. If Immortals are 1.1 in terms of strenghts and BT relative to Dragoons, then protoss won't be able to have enough Immortals out in the midgame, and thus terran will win. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
@ Everything. I want to say this: WE HAVE COME A FAR WAY AND STARBOW FEELS BETTER TO PLAY THAN EVER!!!! Huge shutout to Kabel, Xia, Dec and all others who are working / playing / coming with important input etc. I really feel we (Kabel I mean...) are getting close to a really great game. Oh and I will be playing / casting tonight if the kids stop trowing soap at each other  | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
I really feel we (Kabel I mean...) are getting close to a really great game. This is nowhere near my own effort. I think we together are on our way towards something really cool. I do agree that the game feels much better now than ever before, since we opted for more BW balance. It is ofc not perfect yet, especially the current Protoss dilemma, but we are on our way to solving it. I am writing a longer post atm where I drop a suggestion of exact stats changes for Protoss, with the current problems in mind. Wanna get some feedback before I upload anything. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
I am now looking at exact values. This is the hardest part, since it is so hard to know what will work or not. I am just careful to make as small and correct changes as possible. So give me feedback on my though process below. Makes sense? Wrong approach? Immortal and Stalker at Gateway. Requires Cyber core. How can we arrange the stats so both units are useful in all match-ups? Immortal - Dmg dealer vs Marauder, Tank, Goliath, Lurker, Ultralisk, Stalker, Structures Stalker - Dmg dealer vs Marine, Reaper, Vulture, Banshee, Dropship, Hydralisk, Mutalisk, Baneling, Zealot, and can deal with air units Atm in PvT, it seems like Immortals take quite good care of Vultures. Stalkers are hardly needed. (Since Scouts/Sentinel is a much better option for dealing with Banshee/Terran drop play.) A suggestion for Immortal and Stalker, with as small changes as possible: The damage: >>>+ Show Spoiler + Immortal dmg 14x2 vs armored, 9x2 vs medium, 6x2 vs light. (Earlier it was 14x2 vs armored, 10x2 vs medium, 7x2 vs light) Stalker remain the current dmg, which is 12 vs armored, 14 vs light, 16 vs medium Keep in mind the attack speed & movement speed slightly favours the Stalker. Values in relationship to the other units: 6 Stalker shots to kill a Hydra due to regeneration 5 Stalker shots to kill a Vulture 5 Immortal shots to kill a Vulture OR a Hydra (Earlier it was 4) 4 Immortal shots to kill a worker (Earlier it was 3, except SCV where it requires 4) 3 Stalker shots to kill a worker (except SCV where it requires 4) 6 Immortal shots to kill a Tank (A Dragoon killed a Tank in 8 shots in BW) 6 Immortal shots to kill a Lurker (A Dragoon kill a Lurker in 9 shots. But they were also more useful vs other Zerg units) 5 Immortal shots to kill a Marauder* (Earlier it was 4) (* This is only true if Marauder life becomes buffed to 110 instead of 100. Which we have discussed earlier that it is a needed buff) How much must the damage be differentiated? Shall we have an even larger difference between Stalker and Immortal? Should Immortal require +1 dmg vs armored? Cost and build time >>>+ Show Spoiler + Immortal currently costs 150/75. (25/25 more expensive than a Goon) Stalker currently costs 125/50. (Same as a Dragoon, but much weaker) If we reduce Stalker cost to 100/50, we might encourage more Stalker play as a part of the army, while we still can let it remain fragile. It is still more cost efficient vs Vultures than an Immortal. Cheaper price also makes it easier for P to get more Stalkers to defend vs dropplay/Banshee/Vulture harass. (Cover larger area) T on the other hand can still punish heavy Stalker play via better Marauders + Tank play. Immortal build time at Gateway should IMO be longer than the Stalker. Maybe 50 or 52 seconds? Attack range >>>+ Show Spoiler + Current range values in the game: Stalker starts with 4. Can upgrade +2 at Cyber core. Immortal starts with 5. Can upgrade +2 at Robotic bay. - Immortals and Marines start with 4 range. Can upgrade +1 range to both units from same upgrade. Gains +1 additional range from Bunkers. (Total of 6) - Vulture range 4 - Goliath range 5 vs ground, range 8 vs air - Unsieged tank range 7 - Sieged tank range 13 - Hydra range 4 (+1 from upg) - Lurker range 6 - Cannon + Spine crawler range 7 What range values make sense at Stalker & Immortal? How shall their upgrades be? (This is a tricky one) Scout >>>+ Show Spoiler + The BW cost of the Scout is 275/125. Starbow cost is 175/125. The current problem seems to be in TvP, where it is good enough to defend vs Banshees/Dropships, deal with Vessel, and capable of harass, which inirectly forces Goliaths out of T. And Goliaths can be punished by Protoss ground army. Scouts seems to be the preferred option over Stalkers. Three approaches; - Make Phase missile (mana burn) require upg at Fleet Beacon - Just increase cost to 225/125. (In combination with cheaper Stalkers will make the latter a better option?) - Increase cost to 225/125 and build time from 60 to maybe 70. I don´t want to nerf it into oblivion. Much also depends on if Sentinel remains at Stargate or is moved to Robo. IF the Sentinel is moved, then maybe the Scout should remain as a decent harassment threat in Stargate play? Ah I gotta fix a thing. Will contiune the post soon again  Thoughts so far? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
| ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
Andromeda Alternative Pathfinder Polaris Rhapsody And an unnamed map that looks like it could be awesome with SBOW. | ||
| ||
