|
If toss end up having both goon and stalker there is room to work on interactions right?
The stalker is not meant for a combat unit. Still work in progress on this one, actually we just put him in a two days ago.
Meant more of an harass unit.
The dragoon however, is already a core unit from protoss, you want the dragoon to be cost effecient against the roach?
Could work, since dragoon is not really cost effecient against any unit from zerg except the lurker.
The problem i see here is the dragoon is already used alot in pvt.
Maybe not a problem idk, would be cool to see some new combat unit from protoss that is not a spellcaster or gimmick. Anyway, if now dragoon is good against roach, how is the siegetank not good against this unit? When i say good, see it more as cost effecient.
Edit: the speed while burst, might already be enough for the siegetank, hmm
I kinda like this unit.
A unit that is overall better against "deathball protoss" and "deathball terran" mech, than other lair units from zerg.
Terran already have the marauder, i guess he will be good against the roach just like the dragoon. You have anything in mind how he would fare against terran bio overall?
I see now, he can work great against protoss, and terran mech. What about terran bio?
|
|
|
You have anything in mind how he would fare against terran bio overall?
I see now, he can work great against protoss, and terran mech. What about terran bio?
I'm trying to figure out this scenario. We painted the roach as a lowish dps unit with great mobility capabilities. Basically a tactical fighter plus harasser, but how can it be of any help vs marine medic (marauder)? I'm not sure honestly.
I can see it being cool to burrow charge roaches vs reapers, but that is very little.
|
The thing about the Roach is that its a great unit design implemented on the wrong race. The Roach goes against everything Zerg is about, and gives nothing to enhance good Zergy play. Zerg is about strength in numbers, whereas the Roach gets weaker the more you build. The only Zerg units not massable has traditionally always been casters and specialists, not core army units.
If the Roach can be redesigned to fit the Zerg theme better - sure, its a good unit. But as it stands it really gets stuck as a Zerg unit that feels like a Protoss unit, but would fit best in the Terran lineup (only race without a special meatshield unit).
|
We didnt mean identical to sc2 roach
|
|
|
On September 13 2013 22:51 Kabel wrote:Luckily I went home a short time instead of straight to work. So I upload a patch that fixes the double cost for Dragoons! They now cost 125/50. (As BW) Factory cost 200/100. (As BW) Do Dragoon and Stalker drops instead. ^^ Basically this is almost as the Immortal and Stalker at the Gateway anyway. But with the Dragoon we get closer to the BW balance, which I just think is easier. Now we have more room to do something with the Stalker.
Well stalker at twilight requirement kinda takes the purpose out of it. Stalker currently is dominated by a combo of Dragoons, Archons, HT's + extra static defense.
Dragoon drops are obv. worse than Immortal drops. The combined nerf of these two options makes me believe early game will be a bit more stale and/or more stargate oriented. I prefered the diverse types of build orders you could do with Stalkers and Immortals.
If instead my suggestion had been implemented, each unit would have a well refined role and the required variables to balance the game was quite obvious. For instance buffing Stalker without the twilight requirement would likely make zerg UP vs toss --> but then we could buff hydras --> if that makes zerg OP vs terran mech --> buff tank damage vs medium units which have no uninteded consequences since medium armor only matters vs hydralisks.
With the current solution though, noone really has any clue how to make the Stalker usefull as a harass unit without making it OP as a battle-oriented unit while maintaing clear roles for each protoss unit.
So while the current approach seems to be the "easy" solution it is likely to be much harder to get right.
|
I kinda agree with HideR here. I did enjoy the immortal/stalker at gateway here where the immortal could not shoot air and they both had their important roles.
What was the main problem with stalker / immortal?
|
I played a few games, and this looks quite cool. Are there any Starbow tournaments?
|
On September 16 2013 02:17 Xiphias wrote:
I kinda agree with HideR here. I did enjoy the immortal/stalker at gateway here where the immortal could not shoot air and they both had their important roles.
What was the main problem with stalker / immortal?
Well it was two things;
1) A combo of Stalkers and Immortals had way too less HP compared to Dragoons in BW
2) Without Immortal AA, protoss was way too vulnerable to banshee harass and dropship harass relative to BW. This was especially problematic as we buffed dropships and banshees quite a bit relative to BW
But ofc both of these factors were solveable. The problem with the prior solutions were that the math never added up. Even though we had the immortal in the game for like 3-4 months I feel like we actually never gave it any real chance. We never simply breaked down the math and spend enough time in the unit tester to make sure protoss was balanced - That's kinda why I am a bit dissapointed that we "already" remove it. I would have been symphatic with the decision though if the easy decision was chosen which would have made Sbow ready for release within 1-2 weaks. However, with the decision of keeping the Stalker in the game, I feel like we are getting nowhere tbh.
|
Keep in mind, NA pool isn't up to date. I thought it was but apparently the mod file isn't automatically updating so I'm going to just take the entire EU set of files and upload them to NA.
|
On September 16 2013 02:18 Phyanketto wrote:
I played a few games, and this looks quite cool. Are there any Starbow tournaments?
We had two:
First: wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/User:Xiphias/Starbow_1
Second: wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/User:Xiphias/Starbow_2
There will be more as soon as the game itself stabilizes more.
|
On September 16 2013 03:05 Xiphias wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2013 02:18 Phyanketto wrote:
I played a few games, and this looks quite cool. Are there any Starbow tournaments? We had two: First: wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/User:Xiphias/Starbow_1 Second: wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/User:Xiphias/Starbow_2 There will be more as soon as the game itself stabilizes more.
Will there be prizes?
|
@Phyanketto
Depends on who shells some money out 
@All
We've got a decent number playing on the EU server right now so feel free to join! Join chat channel Starbow.
www.twitch.tv/decemberscalm is live!
|
We might concider to nerf lings hp or buff marines hp since lings really benefit from unlimited unit selection and smoother pathing compared to BW. Maybe mutas too for the same reason. I don't think marines benefit as much.
|
@bw value
Lurker 125 hp 20damage
medium
@marine 45hp
Show some proof why they need it. Zerglings benefit from unlimited unitselection, while marines dont benefit as much. Why not? State some proof, dont just put it there in an empty sentence. You do that alot xiphias
|
What kind of proof are you looking for? Don't just offend others by making general statements about them. You do that a lot 
|
And you come across as a person with questionable character quite often. You do that alot foxxan
There are several factors that makes this quite obvious to understand, even without posting "proof why they need it".
1. You build more Zerglings in numbers than Marines. Unlimited unit selection = You have less of a hard time to move them all.
2. Sophisticated flanks are being simplified, it is more vital to flank Marines with Zerglings than vice versa.
3. Zerglings are melee and much faster, so if you can issue all of them to attack simultaneously, they are going to be able to just close the gap that much faster than if you had to 1a2a3a4a5a your lings from all sides.
4. Zerglings need one attack less to kill a Marine, with their rapid attack speed that equals out to about 10 dps (5 damage every 0.5 seconds) they die in 8 hits/4 seconds.
5. Lurkers now two shoot Marines, there has been no too notable imbalance in TvZ prior, so rampaging over a core unit like that is questionable just for the sake of "Well, in BW it used to work, so it MUST work here as well, amirite?".
That does not answer the question of whether Marines need a nerf or not but holy crap, it's not hard to figure out.
|
Thank Azelja! That saved me a post 
|
On September 16 2013 06:00 Xiphias wrote:What kind of proof are you looking for? Don't just offend others by making general statements about them. You do that a lot
Like some argument why marines dont benefit as much?
You cant just say things without any reason
@azelja
You come off as rude
That does not answer the question of whether Marines need a nerf or not but holy crap, it's not hard to figure out.
What excactly is not hard to figure out?
That zerglings benefit from unlimited unit selection? Thats a no brainer. What I asked was why zerglings benefitted more from it
Marines can groupup with medics, and still use stim for every marine.
Marines is a unit terran builds alot of against zerg, so much easier to move them around
The defender with range units, against melee units, benefit from the pathing, since melee gets slowed quite alot. Range gets slowed to but they shoot at range
Flanking, i would argue and say its easier to flank if u have many control groups and not just one.
Since you need to organise your troops, with accurate attacking
So, only because it doesnt show imbalance at moment it mean it is not imbalanced? Random games is very far off, you should know this azelja. Broodwar have a history of 15years, thats alot of data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
