|
It looks hard to get Stalker + Immortal dmg to fit with that damage system - 100%, 75% and 50%. (To get both units combined dmg equal the cost efficiency of Dragoons) I can´t find any good numbers at least.
If those numbers are correct, then we might be able to fit the Stalker/Immortal into the BW balance.
Immortal
Same cost and HP
Damage vs armored = 14*2
Damage vs light = 6*2
Damage vs medium = 8*2
Stalker.
Cost reduced to 100/50 from 125/50 --> 14% cheaper
Damage vs armored= 11 (from 12) --> 8% less damage
Damage vs light= 12 (from 14) --> 14% less damage
Damage vs medium = 15 (from 16) --> 6% less damage
Further reading: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=399#7966
But it does not fit with a % system. Thus it leads to inconsistency and upgrade problems, since upgrades do not scale equally for all units due to this? Unless we break the system. But I like to have consistent "rules" in the game >.<
|
Stalker have blink.
We just need a rough balance. The game won't be broken if everything isn't super mathematically correlated to BW.
BW itself was balanced by maps and only had rough balance.
|
We just need a rough balance. The game won't be broken if everything isn't super mathematically correlated to BW.
BW itself was balanced by maps and only had rough balance.
It must ofc not be super mathematical correct. But look at how many BW mathematical changes we have done the last 2 weeks. And the game is much much more balanced now than ever. Just because we have been very careful. (And you have done an immense work getting the correct numbers into Starbow)
Since the Stalker/Immortal/Dragoon is such an important basic part of the game, I would prefer if we can get it closer to BW. That would make it a lot easier and would surely improve the game further. No matter if we end up with the Dragoon or Stalker/Immortal, as long as the mathematical balance is kinda maintained, I think it will be fine.
What do you suggest?
|
I think forcing both stalker+immortal to replicate dragoon is inherently not right. In practice we will see people use mainly stalker with a few immortals, or mostly zealots and only a few immortals etc.
You are specializing both units, branching off their stats from a core combat unit.
And then you are trying to combine efficiency of both units assuming that it equals that core combat unit in practice.
If you really want to replicate BW sort of balance as our core base, I'm thinking we should just have a dragoon/immortal that is a decent representation of the BW dragoon. Then we should have the stalker be sort of an add on unit much like the sentinel or the reaper.
This means it cannot be a core combat game changing sort of unit you might comprise a large number of composition with.
So what do you do with it? Maybe turn it into a raider sort of role like the reaper, twilight council tech starting with blink unlocked, concussive damage, really fast fire rate and nerfed hp/shields.
Any idea that doesn't try to shoehorn in as half the functional part of a dragoon, because players can always build more stalker or immortal, or completely ignore one drastically altering the 2 part "dragoon" in sbow.
Players will always after experimenting build what gives them the ability to win. But each unit fairly has its weakeness and strengths to give us the soft counter system we have right now.
|
I have published an unit test map called "Starbow Stalker Test".
This stalker has an attack that do 12 splash damage in a conical area. Try it, and get me your thoughts.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in BW the Dragoon went from 5 range to 7 with the Singularity Charge upgrade, no? Shouldn't we be matching that with the Immortal?
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in BW the Dragoon went from 5 range to 7 with the Singularity Charge upgrade, no? no
@johhnyzerg
i tried the stalker.
The aoe seems to be very inconsistent, sometimes it hit a good aoe, sometimes its bad and very often not at all
If u fix it, i will try it again.
Feel free to add
@sentinel
How about a spell that removes the next shot
Shotremover
25energy
Target: Caster or allies
Effect: Next attack or singletarget spell gets blocked 100%
Lasts 4seconds
|
On September 10 2013 09:17 decemberscalm wrote:
I think forcing both stalker+immortal to replicate dragoon is inherently not right. In practice we will see people use mainly stalker with a few immortals, or mostly zealots and only a few immortals etc.
Depends. I think in TvP you generally wanna have the majority of your army value in Immortals. Roughly a 50-50 mix of Stalkers and Immortals will actually accomplish that since Immortals are more expensive.
If protoss goes pure zealot + Immortals --> Terran can react to to this by goving heavy Vultures, where Immortals deal relatively low damage --> He becomes more cost efficient in BW --> Scouting and reacting is rewarded.
If protoss goes very light on Immortals --> Terran cuts Vulture production --> More tanks --> Terran more efficient than in BW.
So typically I believe we will see a mix, however once in a while players will try to catch their opponent off guard with a "special" unit composition.
With a 50-50 mix of Immo and Stalkers, you will do somewhat similar vs Vultures in a battle as pure Dragoons would have performed. Vs tanks you will perform slightly worse which is probably a good thing as it leaves room for "blink micro". How much does blinking on top of tanks after the Vultures have died add to the cost efficiency of Protoss? I suggest we do some tests once we have time.
In terms of HP, the assymmetry was way off previously. With the suggested stats, Dragoons are still a bit better here, but it is more even now which leaves room for Safeguard becoming a +5-10% ability (rather than a +25% ability).
Vs Hydras and Lurkers in the midgame, you probably also want a healthy mix of zealots, stalkers and Immortals here. Micro is very rewarded as Immortals should target fire Lurkers (if possible) with Stalkers firing at Hydras (if possible), and obv getting a good flank is always possible.
Hydras now have 10 extra HP which means leglots no longer rape Hydras as badly (which is neccesary due to the Stalker buff). Without blink micro, this composition should fare a bit worse than in BW.
With fantastic blink micro + target firing, this composition will probably fare a bit better than in BW. This shouldn't be an issue though as long as zerg also has way to improve their own efficiency.
I think the main difference between the combo of the Stalker + Immortal and having just a Dragoon arises in ZvP early game where I believe stalkers + zealots fares better vs hydras and lings than Dragoons + zealots. This obviously leads to a different type of gameplay and adjustments has to be made along the way. As the game progresses to the midgame, players will start to mix in both types of units in most unit compositions. When we get to the lategame, both units are less neccesary as AOE abilities too some extent can fulfil the same role vs Hydralisks and Lurkers.
If you really want to replicate BW sort of balance as our core base, I'm thinking we should just have a dragoon/immortal that is a decent representation of the BW dragoon. Then we should have the stalker be sort of an add on unit much like the sentinel or the reaper.
This means it cannot be a core combat game changing sort of unit you might comprise a large number of composition with.
So what do you do with it? Maybe turn it into a raider sort of role like the reaper, twilight council tech starting with blink unlocked, concussive damage, really fast fire rate and nerfed hp/shields.
Any idea that doesn't try to shoehorn in as half the functional part of a dragoon, because players can always build more stalker or immortal, or completely ignore one drastically altering the 2 part "dragoon" in sbow.
Giving it a reaper role was kinda something I suggested a couple of weaks ago where I suggested a new ability that should allow it to harass "weakly" defended bases efficienctly. However, it will definitely require a lot of time spent to get this ability right, but without a doubt it would be super fun. But I think we should wait with this to a Sbow expansion 
|
Danko has brought a good point about how it should be either BW attack type system, or just SC2 system. Not a mix like we have.
This means, either bonus system and some values as just flat (more confusing because there is no logic to it, you need to memorize each units stats vs each size) or full out BW damage types (either a flat number vs everything or things like explosive/concussive
I don't think you need to memorize exact stats. You just need to understand the basic as a new player;
- Immortal good vs armored. Bad vs other stuff.
- Stalker good vs the stuff the Immortal isn't.
IMO this is a very simple and intuitive relationships that I don't think new players will have trouble understanding the implications off.
|
Before I continue on the Stalker/Immortal/Dragoon discussion, I want to cover an other related topic:
Shall we use the BW damage system or the SC2 damage system?
Right now we use a mix of it, which is just odd and inconsistent.
Here are the differences:
BW
>>>+ Show Spoiler +
All attacks in BW are either one of the below categories:
Normal: 100% vs all (Example: Marine, Zealot, Zergling)
Explosive: 100% vs large, 75% vs medium, 50% vs small. (Exmaple: Siege Tank, Dragoon, Goliath vs air)
Concussive: 100% vs small, 50% vs medium, 25% vs large. (Example: Firebat, Vulture)
Large = Armored
Medium = Medium
Small = Light
(That is just the names of the armor classes we use in Sbow)
There is potential to create new "weapon types", for example Plasma: 100% vs medium, 75% vs light, 50% vs armored and so on.
SC2
>>>+ Show Spoiler +All attacks are modified to do a direct amount of bonus damage, or less dmg, vs a certain armor type. No percentage. Just plain numbers. Plus and minus can be added vs different armor types.
Example in Sbow: Stalker 12 vs light, 14 vs medium, 16 vs armored.
Here are the units in Sbow who use the BW system:
+ Show Spoiler +Hydralisk
Vulture
Siege Tank
Spider mine
Goliath vs air
Corsair
Here are the units in Sbow who use the SC2 system:
+ Show Spoiler +Stalker
Immortal
Archon
Reaper
Marauder
Banshee
Baneling
Devourer
There are also units with a flat bonus damage value, and thus are in both systems. For example Marine, Zergling and so on.
We can either convert all units to BW damage or to SC2 damage.
Here is what I prefer:
>>>+ Show Spoiler +I actually prefer the SC2 damage system for four reasons: 1. It gives much more room to detail balance specific damage values. (All new units do not fit with the BW system) 2. Damage values are easier to calculate 3. I actually think this system is as easy to understand as the BW system. Everyone knows in SC2 that Hellions are better vs light, or in BW that Vultures are better vs small units etc. 4. It is more visually appealing since it has more clear values. (It gets really messy with upgrades) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5ZlFn40.jpg) If we stick with the SC2 damage system, it is easy to make the BW units and balance fit into this. Instead of Tanks doing 70 dmg vs all, 75% vs medium, 50% vs light, I can manually add the correct numbers vs each armor type, so it looks like this: 70 dmg vs armored, 50 dmg vs medium, 35 dmg vs light (And this corresponds with the percentage ratio in BW. So the balance is kept.) If we want to maintainthe balance for BW weapon upgrades too, I can manually change each upgrade value so it gives the correct amount vs each armor type. However, some decimals will be lost. Tanks won´t do 56.25 dmg vs Hydralisks with +1 weapon. Rather 55 or 56. But as December said in the post above, we must not be super mathematical correct into every detail. To sum it up: I will keep the exact BW balance. I just use the SC2 damage system and I can do all the work to change the numbers so they correspond. It looks better and it gives us more room to detail balance units who are not originally from BW.
- However, are there any important reasons why the BW percentage damage system must be used?
- Will this have any unintended consequenses for the balance or the editor work?
- Will this destroy your shield system switch effects, December? If I make sure each switched effect is correct too, then there is no problem?
|
With how easy it is to mimick the BW system in SC2 values - I'd say go for SC2 system. Its also easier to adjust balance later on, in case it will work better for some units to be like 100%-90%-75% or some other ratio.
The biggest selling point for the SC2 system is the ease of acces, and how much new players are used to this way of writing the damage values.
EDIT: Also, why did noone notice that we passed 400 pages... Its a big moment people, so give yourself a big pad on the back for getting the mod so far.
|
I also think we should stick with the SC2 system. The values for basic units must ofc be the asme for both BW and SC2, but the "system" should be the same as in SC2. I think it iwll be easier to work with balance of non-BW units this way. And also balance units which may need different values for Sbow (siege tank for example).
|
Something you do need to consider.
Armor upgrades and damage types matter a lot when calculating small numbers
Take a really common scenario. A hydra shoots a no shield zealot. In BW this is 10 damage -1 armor=9 damage. Then you divide by 2 dealing a 4.5 damage per shot. Discounting regen its 22.2 shots.
No armor (10-1)=9/2=4.5=22.2222
Add another point of armor? (10-2)=8/2=4= 25 shots to kill
And another? (10-3)=7/2=28.57 shots to kill
And the third point. (10-4)=6/2=3=33.3333 shots to kill.
This means that in the BW system armor scales in its effectiveness by the unite size modifier. Me and Danko agreed that this was actually nice, it never meant you had scenarios where units would simply not deal damage vs units that hardcounter your damage type.
You would always be able to at least hurt the armor type that is supposed to hard counter your units.
The sc2 system would have you deal something like 5 or 4 damage to light all the time to zealot hp. We'll say 5 for now. So subtract 1 armor point. 4 damage every single time. Alternatively, 6 minus 1, giving 5 each shot. So in the end, its either 25 shots to kill or 30 shots to kill discounting regen.
Since our 5 per shot value is the closest we'll use that for now.
So no armor upgrade on the zealot (5-1)=4=25 shots to kill
1 armor (5-2)=3=33.333
2 armor (5-3)=2=50
3 armor (5-4)=1=100
Now you see just how smart the BW damage size system was.
Scaling upgrades was another form of soft counters being in place.
Yes, having +3 helped. It didn't just completely shut you down though unless you saw some serious heavy armor vs really lower flat attack values (marines vs ultras).
Same applies with the vulture
If you have the BW system? The vulture will always be able to do SOME damage to large units because the armor upgrade also scaled. This is just untrue of the SC2 bonus system.
As for shields it will get even more complicated. You'll need some sort of arbitrary bonus to shield damage to each bonus vs light/medium/armored depending on the value you are trying to get.
Edit:
Now lets look at attack upgrades.
Say the hydra gets +1 to his combat amount when his +1 ranged attack finishes.
Do you give a +1 to just his normal combat amount? If your opponent doesn't get armor, you are dealing twice as much extra to a non upgraded zealot as you would in BW.
It gets even worse if he doesn't have armor you and you managed to rush out +2. Its four times as much extra damage than BW would have at that point.
So do you further complicate the SC2 system by adding only like .5 to your light bonus, .75 to your medium, and 1 to your armored bonus?
TLDR In an SC2 bonus system why would I ever engage my opponent if I'm behind in upgrades by just a little bit. This doesn't matter as much in the BW system.
|
Ah ok. So it does indeed play a very important role for the balance. This was what you told me earlier, but I guess I did not understand it properly. Thanks for the clarification!
No way to recreate this in the SC2 system?
Otherwise I guess we have to use the BW system, and adjust the other units so all follow the same system. It is possible, just a bit tricky for a few of the units.
|
On September 10 2013 22:09 Kabel wrote:
Ah ok. So it does indeed play a very important role for the balance. This was what you told me earlier, but I guess I did not understand it properly.
No way to recreate this in the SC2 system?
Otherwise I guess we have to use the BW system, and adjust the other units so all follow the same system. It is possible, just a bit tricky for a few of the units.
It is possible to do something similar.
However, it would feel really arbitrary and over complicated to how simple BW system was.
BW system had a few things to know in practice, but "under the hood" it was quite complicated.
SC2 system has all of its guts and inner workings exposed, so any sort of complicated math you do is blatantly obvious.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MKdGqpC.png)
I was going to do this later, but since it has come up. This is an example of how clean and simple damage types could look. It really is the only important information you need to convey to the player.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 10 2013 21:59 decemberscalm wrote:
Something you do need to consider.
Armor upgrades and damage types matter a lot when calculating small numbers
Take a really common scenario. A hydra shoots a no shield zealot. In BW this is 10 damage -1 armor=9 damage. Then you divide by 2 dealing a 4.5 damage per shot. Discounting regen its 22.2 shots.
No armor (10-1)=9/2=4.5=22.2222
Add another point of armor? (10-2)=8/2=4= 25 shots to kill
And another? (10-3)=7/2=28.57 shots to kill
And the third point. (10-4)=6/2=3=33.3333 shots to kill.
This means that in the BW system armor scales in its effectiveness by the unite size modifier. Me and Danko agreed that this was actually nice, it never meant you had scenarios where units would simply not deal damage vs units that hardcounter your damage type.
You would always be able to at least hurt the armor type that is supposed to hard counter your units.
The sc2 system would have you deal something like 5 or 4 damage to light all the time to zealot hp. We'll say 5 for now. So subtract 1 armor point. 4 damage every single time. Alternatively, 6 minus 1, giving 5 each shot. So in the end, its either 25 shots to kill or 30 shots to kill discounting regen.
Since our 5 per shot value is the closest we'll use that for now.
So no armor upgrade on the zealot (5-1)=4=25 shots to kill
1 armor (5-2)=3=33.333
2 armor (5-3)=2=50
3 armor (5-4)=1=100
Now you see just how smart the BW damage size system was.
Scaling upgrades was another form of soft counters being in place.
Yes, having +3 helped. It didn't just completely shut you down though unless you saw some serious heavy armor vs really lower flat attack values (marines vs ultras).
Same applies with the vulture
If you have the BW system? The vulture will always be able to do SOME damage to large units because the armor upgrade also scaled. This is just untrue of the SC2 bonus system.
As for shields it will get even more complicated. You'll need some sort of arbitrary bonus to shield damage to each bonus vs light/medium/armored depending on the value you are trying to get.
Edit:
Now lets look at attack upgrades.
Say the hydra gets +1 to his combat amount when his +1 ranged attack finishes.
Do you give a +1 to just his normal combat amount? If your opponent doesn't get armor, you are dealing twice as much extra to a non upgraded zealot as you would in BW.
It gets even worse if he doesn't have armor you and you managed to rush out +2. Its four times as much extra damage than BW would have at that point.
So do you further complicate the SC2 system by adding only like .5 to your light bonus, .75 to your medium, and 1 to your armored bonus?
TLDR In an SC2 bonus system why would I ever engage my opponent if I'm behind in upgrades by just a little bit. This doesn't matter as much in the BW system.
Ahhh, for this corsair was well balanced against mutalisks.
Corsair on bw make 5 explosive damage, apparently it seems to be not very effective vs mutalisks (only 2.5 splash damage).
Bw corsair damage vs mutalisk armor:
Mutalisk with 0 armor takes: (5-0)/2 = 2.5
with 1 armor: (5-1)/2= 2
with 2 armor: (5-2)/2=1.5
with 3 armor: (5-3)/2= 1
We must find a way to replicate bw damage system.
|
@Johnny
We already have replicated BW damage system for the units where it matters most (hydra tank mines vultures).
Great point about the corsairs!!!!!
That is actually huge.
|
One way to minimize importance of armor is to get rid of the doubl-eattack system. So instead of Immortals dealing 6*2 to light units, it should be perhaps just do 12 damage (if that's possible?).
|
@December
BW system it is!
@Hider
That is easy to do
@Reaver
Btw, did Reavers deal splash dmg vs burrowed units in BW? (For example clumped up Lurkers)
@Immortal/Stalker/Dragoon
And here we are - the last final important piece of the puzzle.
Immortal & Stalker at Gateway with proper attack values that fit into the BW system... To replicate the mathematical strength of the Dragoon..
Or Dragoon + Stalker as sligly higher tech harass unit.
|
@Corsair
You currently have just 1 effect for it.
For a proper BW system (including full damage to shields).
You first have a switch that chooses the damage effect depending on unit size light/medium/large.
For explosive damage, the light damage effect will have Combat: Armor Reduction set to .5 to properly replicate armor scaling.
Shield factor is set to 1 (adds your combat amount value, dealing double to shields for light units only).
For medium units, Combat:Armor Reduction is set to .75. Shield factor, .25.
Take a look at the hydralisk for how it is set up or I would be willing to set it up any time you'd like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
