|
Why is the use of golaiths still being talked about?
Outside of 2v2's, golaiths are rarely used at all except to shoot down air. They function as mostly anti-air and meat shields for your tanks. The only time you see mass golaiths is for
A) Anti-BC/Wraith
B) Anti-Mass Mutalisk
C) Anti-Carrier/Arbiter
Notice how those are all air units? Marine and medics do a much better job against ground units, with the exception of against lurkers.
Yes, you can pull out a few games where golaiths have been used successfully, but I would attribute the success to the player, rather than the strategy. If they just went bio instead of Golaiths, they probably would have done just as well. [Unless it's a TvZ or a TvP where vulture tank would have been better.]
|
On July 23 2012 07:23 MNdakota wrote:
How is everything coming along Kabel?
There are a few things left I need to fix. On saturday the new patch will be uploaded.
- All available units and buildings for the races will be complete.
- All casters will have a complete line-up of spells.
- All errors and bugs will (hopefully!) have been fixed.
- A high ground system. (Units on low ground deals less damage vs units on high ground)
There are few dramatic changes and the game will look roughly like it already does. Will the new content make the game more balanced right away? Of course not. But I feel that it is time to nail everything down. Otherwise we can go on forever deciding on which units, spells etc shall be in the game. Progress must be made and I feel that this version will be the most "complete" version so far.
I am also looking for better maps. I aim to get a map pool consisting of three to four maps. If you have suggestions, let me hear em!
|
|
|
On July 24 2012 02:39 Laertes wrote:
Gossen, there was a superb melee mapper named ScorpSCII who I sent your way. I know he is very excited about the mod, and he is really innovative, so I think we should ask him to make some interesting themes for us. He could make us maps specifically tailored to Starbow. I think I will pitch some ideas here:
Yep, I´ve come in contact with him. He told me he would let me know when he finishes a map. Hopefully he does soon, cause I am eager to see his stuff 
You seem to have lots of ideas Laertes. You wanna make a melee map?
|
|
|
On July 24 2012 02:49 Laertes wrote:
UMS is one thing Kabel, terrain is not my strong point though, in group projects I mostly do data, a melee map for me would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. It's far to easy for me to have a vision of a melee map, but actually executing that vision is going to be tough for me. I suppose I could try, but it would be ridiculously hard :\, maybe Roblin could implement a few of my ideas.
If you upload sketches/pictures of your ideas I think they will be easier to visualize
|
|
|
On July 24 2012 02:49 Laertes wrote:
UMS is one thing Kabel, terrain is not my strong point though, in group projects I mostly do data, a melee map for me would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. It's far to easy for me to have a vision of a melee map, but actually executing that vision is going to be tough for me. I suppose I could try, but it would be ridiculously hard :\, maybe Roblin could implement a few of my ideas.
I cannot.
I made forbidden lagoon and ancient colosseum because there was need and I had time. right now only one of those are true.
|
On July 24 2012 03:07 Laertes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 02:51 Kabel wrote:On July 24 2012 02:49 Laertes wrote:
UMS is one thing Kabel, terrain is not my strong point though, in group projects I mostly do data, a melee map for me would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. It's far to easy for me to have a vision of a melee map, but actually executing that vision is going to be tough for me. I suppose I could try, but it would be ridiculously hard :\, maybe Roblin could implement a few of my ideas. If you upload sketches/pictures of your ideas I think they will be easier to visualize Hey kabel, you're putting in the devourer-attack corrupter idea I had right? I gave corrupters an attack that put the devourer debuff on units they attack. Also, I took off corruption since I hate the ability. One interesting thing about the debuff was that it stacked 3 times for ONE unit but it was possible to put up to 8 on the enemy with multiple corrupters. ALSO: Make sure ensnare is how I made it, it uses a switch to give different debuffs to different units. There is a global which is 18% attack speed debuff and 50% movement debuf, mechanical ground(NOT AIR) gets NO 18% debuff but the 50% movement speed debuff still applies. Then massive units get a 0.025 attack speed debuff and a 5% movespeed debuff. There should be switches like this on every caster spell imo that affects units. I think lockdown, for example, should have LESS of a duration on non-mechanical units, and that plague should slow down air units or something.
I will look at the corruptor devour-ability and probably add it. I don´t have access to the editor right now, but how does the devour ability work? It reduces attack speed of the attacked unit?
Ensnare will not be the way you made it. Its way to complicated with different numbers for different units. I hate it myself when I play stuff people make and the tooltip consists of large walls of texts describing all different effects the ability does. I like it when it is elegant and simple to understand. The only reason I see to make an ability effect different units in different ways is if we discover that it is needed for the balance.
|
|
|
Then don't put it on the tooltip. In BW there was so many specifics, and that was part of the magic of BW, the more conditionals an ability have, the more interesting the spell is. I modeled ensnare after BW because you wanted me to, im kind of upset that you want to simplify it, cause thats the problem with SC2, too simple, no room for creativity.
I did not know that Ensnare in BW had different effects on different units. Other abilities also had that?
I will simplify things at first. If spells for some reason need to be better vs certain kind of units I will add it when necessary for balance. If BW ensnare worked differently vs different units, I assume Blizzard found those values when they playtested the game . I see no reason to add 15% vs that, 25% vs that etc out of the blue, which is what will happen if I take the BW values and put them into this. Its not the same context.
|
On July 24 2012 05:22 Laertes wrote:
too simple, no room for creativity.
Of course it's going to be simple. There's no reason for something like a Zergling to do 2 damage to this unit and 10 damage to that unit or even 50 damage to another unit. It has to be simple especially for a fast-paced game like StarCraft 2.
It's too confusing otherwise.
|
|
|
On July 24 2012 10:25 Laertes wrote:
LOL, this word "confusing" gets thrown around a TON, you guys are really big sellouts you know that? Stop trying to simplify everything, sure you'll get more newbs, but the proscene will SUCK.
What pro-scene?
It is because it's confusing ya big wanker.
It's just a bad idea to have a spell have too many variables.
|
|
|
On July 24 2012 10:33 Laertes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 10:31 MNdakota wrote:On July 24 2012 10:25 Laertes wrote:
LOL, this word "confusing" gets thrown around a TON, you guys are really big sellouts you know that? Stop trying to simplify everything, sure you'll get more newbs, but the proscene will SUCK. What pro-scene? It is because it's confusing ya big wanker. Updated my post.
Dude, if you don't like it. Then you can stop playing. It's not that hard.
May I remind you that if you Ensnare Zerglings instead of Ultralisks, that doesn't mean that it's bad. That just means that the player has terrible control in general. In fact, why would you want to Ensnare an Ultralisk when you can Ensnare a pack of Zerglings? Would be much more effective overall.
|
Starcraft has always been simple at the core. Both BW and SC2. Over-complicating it like a moba is a very bad idea. Very simple and straight forward abilities and gameplay. It's the combination that gave the game depth and not being able to do everything at the same time. But specific things singled out should be simple and clear. There might have been a few things that were oddly more complicated than the rest in BW, but as great as BW was it wasn't perfect. Don't put in weird numbers just for the sake of making it weird. Weird isn't the same as deep.
|
On July 24 2012 10:41 pzea469 wrote:
Starcraft has always been simple at the core. Both BW and SC2. Over-complicating it like a moba is a very bad idea. Very simple and straight forward abilities and gameplay. It's the combination that gave the game depth and not being able to do everything at the same time. But specific things singled out should be simple and clear. There might have been a few things that were oddly more complicated than the rest in BW, but as great as BW was it wasn't perfect. Don't put in weird numbers just for the sake of making it weird. Weird isn't the same as deep.
I couldn't have said it better.
|
On July 24 2012 05:22 Laertes wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 05:04 Kabel wrote:On July 24 2012 03:07 Laertes wrote:On July 24 2012 02:51 Kabel wrote:On July 24 2012 02:49 Laertes wrote:
UMS is one thing Kabel, terrain is not my strong point though, in group projects I mostly do data, a melee map for me would be like trying to find a needle in a haystack. It's far to easy for me to have a vision of a melee map, but actually executing that vision is going to be tough for me. I suppose I could try, but it would be ridiculously hard :\, maybe Roblin could implement a few of my ideas. If you upload sketches/pictures of your ideas I think they will be easier to visualize Hey kabel, you're putting in the devourer-attack corrupter idea I had right? I gave corrupters an attack that put the devourer debuff on units they attack. Also, I took off corruption since I hate the ability. One interesting thing about the debuff was that it stacked 3 times for ONE unit but it was possible to put up to 8 on the enemy with multiple corrupters. ALSO: Make sure ensnare is how I made it, it uses a switch to give different debuffs to different units. There is a global which is 18% attack speed debuff and 50% movement debuf, mechanical ground(NOT AIR) gets NO 18% debuff but the 50% movement speed debuff still applies. Then massive units get a 0.025 attack speed debuff and a 5% movespeed debuff. There should be switches like this on every caster spell imo that affects units. I think lockdown, for example, should have LESS of a duration on non-mechanical units, and that plague should slow down air units or something. I will look at the corruptor devour-ability and probably add it. I don´t have access to the editor right now, but how does the devour ability work? It reduces attack speed of the attacked unit? Ensnare will not be the way you made it. Its way to complicated with different numbers for different units. I hate it myself when I play stuff people make and the tooltip consists of large walls of texts describing all different effects the ability does. I like it when it is elegant and simple to understand. The only reason I see to make an ability effect different units in different ways is if we discover that it is needed for the balance. Then don't put it on the tooltip. In BW there was so many specifics, and that was part of the magic of BW, the more conditionals an ability have, the more interesting the spell is. I modeled ensnare after BW because you wanted me to, im kind of upset that you want to simplify it, cause thats the problem with SC2, too simple, no room for creativity.
name 1 thing in bw that works differently based on what target it hits.
the only things I can think of are that certain abilities do not affect certain units, for example, dark swarm does not protect flying units, but does protect burrowed units, but I do not think that "does affect" conditionals are what you mean.
as for interesting gameplay:
complexity is rarely preferred over simplicity, for example:
Go
+ Show Spoiler +age of game: "more than 2500 years" rough estimate of active players: "As of mid-2008 there were well over 40 million Go players worldwide" rule 1: the game is played on a field with 19 by 19 lines, there are two players, here called "black" and "white", named after the color of their pieces, black makes a move first, then white, and after that they alternate. if there is big difference in skill, the weaker player may get a handicap. rule 2: a move consists of either placing a stone of your color on any vacant intersection of lines, limited by rule 6 and 8, or a player may pass his or her turn if they wish. rule 3: the game ends when both players pass their move in succession. rule 4: the winner is the player whos stones encircle the largest total area at the end of the game. rule 5: two adjacent, similar-colored stones are in the same chain. by extension, all similar-colored stones that are "connected" to each other by any number of adjacent similar-colored stones are in the same chain. it is possible for a chain to consist of only 1 stone. rule 6: a stone may not be placed such that the field is identical to a previous move. this is to avoid repetition. rule 7: if, after the placement of a stone, there is a chain which cannot be extended by its owner in the next move, then all stones in the chains are "captured" by the other player and the stones are removed from the field. rule 8: the player using the black stones may not make a move which captures black stones, similarly, white may not make a move which captures white stones. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)
go has, in comparison to most other boardgames, extremely simple rules, yet it is by far the most complex game played to this day.
in my opinion, the game's "settings" or "rules" does not need to be complex, complexity comes from having the simple rules be repeated many many times.
other good examples of pretty complex games with fairly simple rules are:
chess
othello
checkers
five-in-a-row (originally gomoku, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomoku)
and finally, some quotes, all from the same person:
to laertes:
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
to kabel:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
to both of you:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
to everyone:
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
and just some funny ones:
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
+ Show Spoiler +
and one to myself:
He who trains his tongue to quote the learned sages, will be known far and wide as a smart ass.
- Howard Kandel
|
Actually ensare worked different on few units in bw.
1. It slowed units down by 50% or gave them upgradedless speed for units with upgrades. Same goes for atack speed (almost same), so ensared stim rines atacked almost like normal ones. craclings turned into slowlings witchout adrenal etc. Golis/Tanks/ultras were not affected with atk speed slow.
I agree with that game should be simple, but if you want it to have different effect on different units then make it slow atack as bonus to cooldown, not modifier. +0,3 or something like that and 50% slow. Will be weaker on tanks, great on small units. Good on ultras due to move speed slow, insane on lings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
