EPT[A] Starbow - Page 428
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
| ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Mobile detection units have a detection range of 11, this is very important | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
One aspect of macro mechanics that will not present a problem to you immediately, but may do so in the future when players get closer to achieving a "max performance ceiling", is the issue of how difficult, intense and APM-taxing the macro mechanics are and should be. If I could change anything in SC2 about macro mechanics, it would probably be to #1 make them more relevant throughout a game, and #2 Make them harder, even if it's through pointless means. You sort of made macro mechanics harder in Starbow by adding a cooldown on their use. I don't have any issues with your methods. I just think they could be made even harder (even if some people will argue it's pointless). I'd honestly wouldn't mind shortening the larva inject duration and scaling the energy required accordingly. The same for chrono boost. 7-10 seconds duration with corresponding energy cost and an aggressive cooldown timer. The only odd man out here (in Starbow) is the SCV calldown. It's sort of hard to scale that... If you still had some sort of mule, it would be easier to make a MULE that for example only lived long enough to return 2 batches of minerals and only cost say 10 energy (with a 6-8 cooldown penalty). Something that required constant spamming, and constantly incentivized players to periodically take their eyes off a battlefield. The question is always: how hard do you push it before it becomes too much? My only answer is... just far enough so that the absolute best players can differentiate themselves from eachother in the macro department. I think if Blizz would make a poll today among pro players whether they should just divide all durations and costs by 4 and make macro mechanics harder and scale better throughout games, very few player would vote no. * The downside of course would be that it risks making other shared abilities on these structures and units pointless. But they could always be made relevant through some other means. The #1 priority I'd have is always to make macro hard enough where it becomes a serious differentiator. Even if it removes the "tension of choice" between different abilities. I don't care and the majority of progamers wouldn't care either if it was a mindless ability. They'd rather see practice pay off than worry about how the ability plays in the head of a game designer. | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
I've been testing different values and methods most of the weekend and into today. I cannot, for reasons I do not fully understand recreate 100% BW eco. I think our triggers are slightly too smart compared to original BW behavior even though they are closer than the old triggers. There seem to be two main problems that are hard to deal with at once. 1. Workers 12 to 16 gives much more income than BW. 2. Workers 20 to 24 gives much less. The rest seems OK. BW surprisingly gave max saturation with 3 workers per patch (we thought that you could over-saturate like crazy, like we could with the old triggers, but that is not the case). I would like to keep over-saturation a bit longer, but with very little effect and I have managed to make that! I cannot make our values gives as much as BW can with max saturation and it takes longer to get max saturation. The differences are slight though. This is actually not that bad as we have macro mechanics in Starbow so we would make a lot more than BW with 100% BW values. So without further adue, here are the values I have been able to create. I use 8 patches per base. 4 are as close as possible and 4 are one square further away. # = # of workers. # ------ Best test -------- What we have now ---- BroodWar 8 ------- 544 --------------- 572 --------------------------- 543 12 ----- 683 --------------- 700 --------------------------- 710 16 ----- 832 --------------- 850 --------------------------- 811 20 ----- 939 --------------- 920 --------------------------- 955 24 ----- 984 -------------- 980 --------------------------- 1136 28 ----- 1035 ------------ 980 --------------------------- 1136 32 ----- 1061 ------------- 980 ----------------------------1136 What we have now is actually slightly different from this because I tested with default movement speed instead of Sbow movement speed so what we have now is probably even worse than these numbers. I am pleased with this but disappointed that I cannot create BW values. I tried sooo much stuff. Making workers turn before moving, forcing mineral-patches to be closer to main base than currently possible, making main bases smaller,adding crazy deceleration values etc... To me it seems very difficult to make, but I'm not gonna say it's impossible. I sent Kabel instructions on how to implement this test. If he does this you will notice the following: You will notice that workers now have to turn before they move IF they have to turn more than 90 degrees. Hopefully it won't affect other parts of the game too much. It's hard to get good results without this. I've tried a lot with only acceleration values, but the turn before move really helps and replicates BW quite a lot. This should actually make pulling workers away from harass be a tiny tad more difficult which I think is fine tbh. I think pulling workers is too easy now. Workers also will have a slightly higher movement speed (SC2 default) which should fit right into Dec's suggestion on map sizes and unit speeds in order to recreate BW rush distance in real time. Hope this get implemented. If so, enjoy new eco! I spent so much time getting to this result so once this gets implemented I don't think it will be changed again anytime soon. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
@more bw values Mobile detection units have a detection range of 11, this is very important According to Liquidpeda for BW, Vessel has detection range 10. Overlord and Observer detection range 9. Turrets, Cannons, Spore Colonies have range 7. This is in Sbow aswell. Although, Observer or Overseer have no sight range upgrade. Was that relevant in BW? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Observer Look in the top right corner under the Observer picture for sight range. @Macro mechanics BW required so much attention from the player in so many areas that no player could do everything. Thus there was an unlimited skill ceiling. Players in BW can express skill via: - macro fast - manage large armies really well (coordinate 5+ control groups) - micro individual units really well - saturate bases really fast (constantly check a base as soon as a worker finished to order it to harvest) - take strategic/tactical decisions - multitask and know when to focus on a specific thing (shall I take my eyes of the combat now or not?) In the SC2 engine we have: - macro via macro mechanics. (Even though it is a relatively low skill ceiling, since most pros always hit Inject every 40 seconds, I assume) - micro individual units really well - take strategic/tactical decisions - multitask Then we can ofc discuss what "skill" is, and in what ways players should be able to express it. Personally I have always liked the arcade feeling of BW. So much needs to be managed by the player. The part that makes me most sad is unlimited selection of units. It takes away one huuge, fun and important skill aspect of large combats. If I could, I would add a selection limit for units. Maybe 16 or 24. Maybe a selection limit on structures as well. But on the other hand, is "braindead" clicking more fun? If players need to take their eyes of the battlefield to focus on clicking on their structures for macro very frequently, that gives less time for the fun combat micro? How much should we focus on making Sbow mechanical challenging? Or should it be relatively mechanical easy, since all who ever play Sbow will be casual players, but have more focus on "quick decisions" and maybe multitasking of units? (For example via stronger harassment options, or make sure defence requires focus by the players and so on) Just some aspects to consider. Since I now try to focus on the macro mechanics, there is room for improvemets. If players could just select one structure at a time, as in BW, the macro mechanics would probably not be needed. But SC2 engine without them gives little room for skill in macro. I have tried to shorten the duration of macro mechanics to make them become used more often, thus make sure it is a "apm-intensive" thing to do.. I think Calldown SCV had like 15 seconds calldown a long time ago, Inject only lasted 30 seconds etc. But that has gradually increased for various balance reasons. Calldown SCV is the most problematic of those though, as you say Lalush. Later on have I instead tried to make those mechanics compete with other useful abilities energy, to focus more on the decision and "strategy". Hmm... @Economy I will implement the adjustements now and have it uploaded within a hour. I can be online too, for once. @Unit movement speed Dec sent me updated values for units movement speed so it fits better with map scale. Basically should most units have similar speed to SC2 to get it right. (Marine 2.25 instead of 2.05 as it is now) I am unsure about a couple of them though. Dragoons for example? Stalkers? Banshee? Baneling? Reaper? How do I know how much I need to increase the current speed values for those units? (If we assume their current relation is ok) What is the formula for converting speed values from this list into SC2 engine? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Unit_Movement_Speed | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
According to Liquidpeda for BW, Vessel has detection range 10. Overlord and Observer detection range 9. Turrets, Cannons, Spore Colonies have range 7. I dont found any detection range on this site about mobile detectors. Where did you found that? You looked at "sight" ? On my site it says clearly detection range 11 Observer or Overseer have no sight range upgrade. Was that relevant in BW? Yes, it could be But on the other hand, is "braindead" clicking more fun No, not really. I am glad i dont have to move to my nexus, and manually target a mineral field, also glad i dont have to struggle with retard pathing. I wanna focus more on strategy,tactic,harass,multitask than "braindead" stuff. Not sure every pro hits inject every 40seconds. A few months ago when i watched Life he didnt hit it that often actually. Soulkey might be a better example here, i aam clueless when it comes to him. For me, the inject is kinda fun actually when i play sc2hots. Mule is not that fun, cb not as fun either. | ||
|
Izerman
Sweden99 Posts
maybe scale down the fire rate too.. | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
You would have to adjust armor accordingly or go another route like doupling HP. IMO it is not something for Starbow through. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
That is basically a huge bandaid fix for SC2 200 vs 200, while also greatly hurts smaller engagements. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
- Adjusted eco by Xiphias - Vulture & Mutalisk micro by Dec - Firebat (Might need to tweak some things with it to get it right) - No Marauder splash - Vessel require Fusion core - Increased research time on Stimpack, Spider mines and Siege tech (Should correspond better to BW now) - Some bug fixes No change to macro mechanics No change to unit speeds. (I changed every unit speed value just to find out I had calculated it wrongly. >_<) I upload the patch anyway since I can not work more in the editor atm. @Foxxan and sight range http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Observer Look in the top right corner under the Observer picture for sight range. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Click on the photon cannon and you will see a "detection/attack" range. Observer, Science vessel, Overlord all have 11 detection range. Note, you cant see what detection range they have on this site. http://classic.battle.net/scc/terran/ustats.shtml Here is my proof | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
| ||
|
Fishgle
United States2174 Posts
the wikia disagrees, tho. http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Observer - | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
On October 01 2013 04:00 lolfail9001 wrote: By the way, i guess i missed the whole deal, but can someone explain me the point of emulating BW economics (that IMO are worker-pathing specific) and not their general behavior (that was emulated well enough in SC2BW as far as i know)? Not quite sure what you are referring to by "general behavior", but I assume it is the "worker bounce". In other words, the fact that workers, when trying to mine at an occupied patch, instantly goes to another one instead of waiting. What we have done, and which has influenced our current "general behavior" more than anything else is to look closely at BW workers and discover that the SC2BW bounce triggers are not, in fact, how BW workers behaved. SC2BW workes will bounce even if there are no open patches available for mining at the time they are trying to mine from an occupied patch. In BW they wait only if there are no other patches open at the time of mining. This is what we have in our worker triggers. But the SC2 engine is smarter than BW, so even though they do the "smart bounce" (as I call it) it was still quite away from BW stats, so I added some acceleration values and a turning time to mimic BW more and got as close as I feel we can get atm. Hope this answered your question. An important factor in all of this: SC2BW eco is probably less effective than BW eco since the triggers causes them to always bounce and never wait which is not how it is in BW. Try with 2 patches and 3-4 workers in BW map and see for yourself. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 01 2013 04:45 Xiphias wrote: Not quite sure what you are referring to by "general behavior", but I assume it is the "worker bounce". In other words, the fact that workers, when trying to mine at an occupied patch, instantly goes to another one instead of waiting. What we have done, and which has influenced our current "general behavior" more than anything else is to look closely at BW workers and discover that the SC2BW bounce triggers are not, in fact, how BW workers behaved. SC2BW workes will bounce even if there are no open patches available for mining at the time they are trying to mine from an occupied patch. In BW they wait only if there are no other patches open at the time of mining. This is what we have in our worker triggers. But the SC2 engine is smarter than BW, so even though they do the "smart bounce" (as I call it) it was still quite away from BW stats, so I added some acceleration values and a turning time to mimic BW more and got as close as I feel we can get atm. Hope this answered your question. An important factor in all of this: SC2BW eco is probably less effective than BW eco since the triggers causes them to always bounce and never wait which is not how it is in BW. Try with 2 patches and 3-4 workers in BW map and see for yourself. Nono, under general behavior i meant the behavior of income curve at the typical worker values (up to 3 workers per patch). I am aware of slight differences in worker behavior between sc2 and bw (especially the fact that worker only bounces if there is a free patch when he arrives to the patch he wanted to mine from). Simply if i recall right, there is 1 thing that kinda makes it close to impossible to kinda emulate the BW's economy(path worker would take back from mineral patch to town hall, as i forget all the time if workers ignored collisions with each other) that basing unit costs and stuff over attempts to simulate one seems pointless. Under general behavior, in fact, i mean the behavior of income curve as amount of workers per patch grows. In fact it should notably slow down at around 1 worker per patch, and almost stop it's growth after 2 workers per patch with full stop at... have no clue where. You got what i mean here, not down to numbers, just to proportions. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
# ------ Best test -------- What we have now ---- BroodWar 8 ------- 544 --------------- 572 --------------------------- 543 12 ----- 683 --------------- 700 --------------------------- 710 16 ----- 832 --------------- 850 --------------------------- 811 20 ----- 939 --------------- 920 --------------------------- 955 24 ----- 984 -------------- 980 --------------------------- 1136 28 ----- 1035 ------------ 980 --------------------------- 1136 32 ----- 1061 ------------- 980 ----------------------------1136 Well there is a drastic reduction in the 8 next workers after the 8 first, and even more in the next 8 after that. Now the fact that it maxes later is unintentional, but I still think it's good. I like it when I lose a base and I can pull my workers home and they are not wasted space but gives me a little. But this should be no incentive to stay on few bases as the fourth worker adds sooo very little. | ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
Azelja
Japan762 Posts
| ||
| ||
