| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
Reapers are still amazing at map control vs zerg at the moment. I keep the speed relationship the same but I still worry about it. You have map control anyway with bio. Reaper just delays the strengt of the timing attack as it fills up production time. | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
1) Offers a real decision early game between production speed and eco. This is more similar to how the other races work. Atm. the current approach offers a decision between scv call down and supply calldown, but with new econ, scv calldown seems superior and since you also benefits quite a lot from building supply depots for sim city purposes, this doesn't feel like a real decision. I still like supplycalldown though as it just removes a really frustrating part of the game (don't everyone just hate when they are gigantigcally less supply blocked?). 2) Balances out the energy cost of chrono boost and scv calldown better. Previous math compared the cooldown of scvcooldown to efficiency of CB, but we forgot to take energy cost into account. Costing only 25 energy, SCV calldown seems OP atm. 3) Fixes the reactor-issue, which right now feels a bit broken in the sense that it always will be a big buff to mech (relative to BW), but if it costs any more than it does in Sc2, then it will be inefficient to get it on rax'es. 4) If both protoss and terran only start with 25 energy on their upgrades bases, then getting both of them super early is less rewarded --> macromechanics have a less signficiant effect early game. 5) For some people, B2B macromechanics are also important. Scv calldown isn't really something you do past the 12-13 minute mark. The reactor-thing, however, will add a lot more B2B. Personally, I hate the way larva inject is a neccesity in Sc2, cus it means that players have less time to do "fun" stuff, but I kinda like using CB. I think this reactor-element will make be more comparable to CB than Sc2-inject. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
I don't actually want to see 12 unit selection back. A lot of players don't. I like the player to feel free when controlling the game. There are far better ways to encourage smaller group control which we already see so often in SBOW. Plus the method is just glitchy. The more latency you have, the easier it is to a-move 200/200 armies. It is a broken implementation currently, that recquires a hardcoded fix to make it possible. @Hider Pretty much agreed with you on every single point about macro mechanics. As for reaper, if I'm ZvT I build spines depending on how many marines and medics after coming at me with my ling at their door. A single reaper does a great job of both forcing larva, spines, and queens out without having to dedicate to two rax or anything like that. A bio push only gets map control when it hit. Generally I think scouting could be an issue. Queens can deny probes and scv's. Reapers can shut down small batches of lings (which Z DOESN'T want to build at that point in the game if he can afford not to). @Dropdown reactor If you drop this and both units don't finish in time I wonder what happens. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
If you drop this and both units don't finish in time I wonder what happens. The second unit gets in queue. Doesnt have to be "reactors", just make it at the same time spell. So it can work on ccs also | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
As for reaper, if I'm ZvT I build spines depending on how many marines and medics after coming at me with my ling at their door. A single reaper does a great job of both forcing larva, spines, and queens out without having to dedicate to two rax or anything like that. IMO double-queen is the way to go instead of spines. Besides, I don't think agree with the "forcing queens"-argument (and thus implying it is a bad thing). Due to their higher efficinecy of producing larva than hatcheries, you should get them anyway. IMO a big part of the reaper probem comes down to Queens being overpowered in the early game. Besides higher larva generation, they also help with early harass and allows you to spread a bit of creep. If there was a real downside to getting queens vs reapers, then I could follow your logic. For that reason I wouldn't mind seeing a nerf from 60% to 55% (55% might be a bit too much). In it self though, that wouldn't be enough to make Queens a bad opening vs reapers. To get there, we will probably need to make another type of (creative) change; 1) Remove standard-attack from Queens 2) Make attack of queens energy-based (aka you need to invest 25 energy for queens to be able to attack for xx seconds), if you could force energy to be used from queens, then pressure oriented openings would be a lot stronger. With such a type of change, I wouldn't mind seeing larva-inject being a bit "op" (at 60%), as opponents have a way of "countering" it. At the same time, I would like to see the HOTS damage values back to the reaper. 4 damage vs everything feels better than 5/3.75/2.5. This would make them hard-counter slowlings less, and it also give players more time to pull drones away when reapers target them. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
Zerg - Queen default attack is removed - Queen attack is now an ability that needs to be activated at a cost of 25 energy. - Lasts for 20 seconds. Protoss - Nexus upgrade start with 25 energy down from 50 - Rift energy cost increased from 50 to 75 (neccesary, otherwise it would be way way imba vs zerg after queen nerf) Terran - Starting energy of OC reduced from 50 to 25 - Scv calldown energy cost increased from 25 to 60 - Reactor removed. - Reactor calldown introduced; At an energy cost of 50, you will be able to attach a reactor to any production facility instantly. It lasts for 25 seconds and requires no further mineral cost. - To start with, I would like to see this also work for techlab units (like chrono does). Ofc. if it turns out to be IMBA, then we need to adjust it. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
I was posting some in Xeris' thread "SC2: What's the problem?" in a debate there that sprung up about the similarities and differences of Chess vs. SC2. There were some people in particular who made arguments that SC2 was all about practicing mechanics and mindless clicking, and that was their excuses for quitting the game at Diamond level. They had "seen through" the game. Apparently without 200 apm you cannot get GM if these people were to be trusted. Their strategical genious wasn't allowed to shine through in a game like Starcraft, and they much preferred playing chess, where their superior strategic minds would somehow guarantee victory and enjoyment. I think all of that is bullshit. Whether it's chess, or pretty much any other competitive sport/game, you have to grind out and practice thousands of hours of "useless" and repetitive tasks to be competitive. The people who post excuses about how Starcraft made them quit because it was "too mechanical" would with almost full certainty also have quit chess at the equivalent level. How many chess books do you think your average chess GM has studied? How many openings do you think they have memorized? How much time have they spent studying their opponents? How much time have they spent grinding out optimal play in end game scenarios or just specific scenarios in general? In game design the concept of depth if often referred to as the "benign" form of complexity. The kind of complexity that adds longevity through skill and provides potential for players to differentiate themselves. My whole point of bringing this all up, and the argument I want to make, is that depth has absolutely no bearing or relevance for a casual/beginner player's enjoyment of the game. The people who play at lower levels of any sport or esports are so far removed from the depth and complexity of the highest levels that it's irrelevant to bring them up as a supposed "barrier". The complexity (the rules you need to learn to be able to play the game) of Starcraft does not consist of stuff like macro mechanics and shit like that (as people like to believe). The barrier of entry to Starcraft is simply the effort of learning what every unit is, what every unit does, how to make units, how to make buildings, what every building does, how to box select, how to attack move, how to pan your screen, what minerals and what gas mean/do, ... you get it by now. This is the true barrier of entry to Starcraft. There is no reason why people who pass this barrier of entry should not find enjoyment in playing at their level -- no matter how low. There is no reason why they cannot express strategy at their bronze league level of play. What does the difficulty of macro mechanics at the pro level have to do with how games in the bronze league play out and how they would potentially play out if macro mechanics instead were designed in a wholly different way? Casuals don't use macro mechanics. And when they use macro mechanics, they hardly use them in any meaningful, relevant or consistent way. These things are irrelevant because casuals are terrible no matter how difficulty scales at the top level. Just like a novice chess player might have seen a pro do an opening, but has zero concept whatsoever about what to do with the opening after the first two moves. A novice chess player just randomly plays... without respect to optimal positional play or theory or the burden of knowing the difficulties and complexities of every move. The game's depth has zero relevance to the beginner's play after the beginner has already passed the burden of learning the game's rules. Depth is what makes sports interesting to watch. I enjoy watching Messi and Ibrahimovic because they spent 15000 hours of their life perfecting every aspect of how to handle a round sphere with their feet. I enjoy watching Chess because I can see the genious of 10000 hours of effort shine through. The common denominator, whether it's watching basketball, football, hockey or chess players, is that I can appreciate their play -- while fully realizing how unattainable their level is to a mere mortal like myself. To be honest, in my entire SC2 adventure, the only time I ever truly felt "wow":ed in a way where I thought: "There is probably no way I could ever replicate that even if I tried", was in watching Stephano consistently winning engagements that I 100% would have lost every single time. Other than that, no play, no player, no feat of macro or micro has felt out of reach. To me that's a big problem. Because admiration is a form of "respect of the unattainable". That's why I dislike when a huge aspect of Starcraft (macro) is waved away with the argument that strategy or micro can make up for it. Time management is an essential part of a Real Time Strategy game. Time and attention should be considered just as valuable a resource in an RTS as minerals and gas, and be recognized as such in the design of an esport. Enough of the vague talk from me. My tips for the macro mechanics is just: You talk too much about balance in this thread. I think you should just focus on whether the mechanics are consistent with eachother in the way they work. SCV calldown I think is consistent design wise with chrono boost and larva inject. For starters, I definitely think you should have macro mechanics in the game. I think it's good that Starbow is slightly faster in economic development than BW. But at the same time it should be slower than SC2. My suggestion with the short lived MULE would introduce an inconsistency design wise in that Terran would create workers much slower than the other two races. I can't see a good way out of that apart from maybe making SCVs build 0.5 seconds faster than other workers or something along those lines (wouldn't create too much of an imbalance by the time larva inject and chrono kicked in). Another suggestion in keeping openings closer to BW opening wise would be to make orbital/queen/nexus start with lower or 0 energy to slow down the early game slightly while keeping with the increased pace of the game later. Starting with 0 energy is only really a relevant choice if you go for the extreme route of shortening duration and energy cost of macro mechanics. Hider especially seems to think there's some unfairness about CC first right now. I think that's delving too far into balance, but the proposition in the above paragraph might make it less unfair (if it indeed is a problem, I can't say I have noticed anything). Hider already suggested these in the post above I see now. GJ. I'll probably not be too involved in suggesting details for these things. Don't want to hijack this movement. Plus, you guys seem to be enjoying the design aspect whereas I can't say I particularly enjoy it. It's a crucial aspect. You seem to be doing a perfectly good job without my involvement. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Hider especially seems to think there's some unfairness about CC first right now. I think that's delving too far into balance, In pvt, it gives double eco booster. Also Barack>techlab>liftoff = Faster techlabon factory = faster tank out We played this on a bigger scaled map. Enough marines were made before zealot arrived and closely thereafter bunker is done. One base reaver drop > three tanks out with siege | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
That's why I dislike when a huge aspect of Starcraft (macro) is waved away with the argument that strategy or micro can make up for it. I think the strategical aspect of Sc2 is hugely overrated in general (mostly by casuals), and we definitely shouldn't replace a high skill cap with more "strategy". But why is the unit-control argument (aka more micro and multitasking) irrelevant? I believe that if a game is too easy, then this is often due to the fact that players aren't incentiviized for attacking enough or doing enough multitaskbased attacks. For instance, protoss in Sc2 is a "great" example of that. To me that is a design-flaw with the game as it results in 3 problems; 1) Too easy mechanics/low skill cap 2) Boring to spectate 3) Boring to play (I feel that way at least). But what if protoss could be much more aggressive instead? Wouldn't that solve all of the problems? | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
I agree as well. I think we should only make major changes to this game and not too many minor ones before we try to reach a wider audience. Let the people explore and discover. Let's get map-sizes right, make sure spellcasters have nice spells that can be used in many different ways and make sure each unit is properly defined and then reliese this mod. Get it our on the forums and then we can start to balance, ones we have much more data than now. I hope you keep playing this though, we really need people at higher levels looking for the depths.  | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Zerg - Queen inject larva redesigned Spawns two larva anywhere on creep for 10sec, cost 30energy - Queen autoattack requires upgrade on evolutionchamber for 50/25 75sec build time Terran - - SCV calldown removed - *New* Reactorcopy, requires OB upgrade Makes two units simultaneously for 15seconds(Works on cc, production building), cost 30energy. - Scan redesigned. Do not share energy. Unlocks it for 50/50, 17.6 Buildtime on each OB(Can not build workers while upgrading). (To get more bw balance). Protoss - CB, 30mana. Lasts 30seconds. OB, CB, QUEEN all start with 25energy Queen without autoattack at start: Could adjust the cost of her, 125minerals Not set in stone for 100% balance. Just the core macroboosters feel good here for all three. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
As previously described, I believe that the problem with these two units vs terran is that they are kinda equally good vs the same type of units (except for banshee, but banshee's will probably never be a real combat-oriented unit). Atm the Stalker "tanks" well vs Siege tanks, but dies quickly too Vultures. On the other hand it kills Vultures pretty fast and kills tanks slowly. The Dragoon is the exact opposite, but since both units have similar mobility and range, you can't really take advantantage of these differences (in most situations). Thus, even though they have opposite stats, they end up overlapping extremely much. But what if we found a way to take advantage of these differences, so perhaps it became practical to put Dragoons in front vs Vultures, and Stalkers in front after the Vultures have died? The latter is actually something that is already doable due to the blink-ability. After Vultures are killed off, Stalkers can blink on top of tanks which likely will draw more fire from siege tanks (unless terran focus fire). But I think the former isn't really gonna be practical in most situations - unless we change something in how they work. Suggestion for new Dragoon Give Dragoon two modes! Mode 1: - Attack speed reduced from 2 to 1.7 attack speed (BW was 1.8) - HP changed from 100/80 to 80/100 - Base armor reduced from 1 to 0. Mode 2: - Base armor = 1 - HP increased to 110/90 - Attack speed increased to 2.2 - Movement speed reduced to 2.45 from 2.63 - Range reduced from 6 to 4 (it doesn't benefit from range upgrade). Switch between modes should be relatively fast so it is practical to do during battles. Stalker unchanged (for now). Effect on gameplay - The differences betwen the two modes aren't gigantic and you will still be able to play a BW'ish type of game by using only the Mode 1 Dragoon. So overall, I wouldn't say these changes are taking anything away from BW. - When Dragoon is in Mode 2, it tanks much better vs units like Vulture, Hydralisk and Marines. It will also be a bit better vs Maurauders, Tanks and roaches of course. - It dies from 21 Vulture shots in Mode 1 compared to 33 in Mode 2. BW Dragoon took 29 shots to die from a Vulture. - Vs Vultures in isolated battles (no tank to back up the vultures) it will be quite natural to use Dragoons in Mode 2 and Stalkers to shoot from behind. This will create a micro battle, where Vultures will try to target fire Stalkers with Dragoons trying to block the path. - Vs Vultures + Tanks, you will likely attack with Dragoons in Mode 2 and Stalkers. Then after most of Vultures have been killed off, you will switch to Mode 1 and blink on top of tanks with Stalkers. - Vs Maurauders it will die in 12 shots in mode 2 and 10 shots in Mode 1. Vs Marines it will tank 40 shots in Mode 2 compared to 30 shots in mode 1. BW Dragoon died in 36 shots vs Marines and 11 shots vs Maurauders. - WIth these changes it may now be possible for protss to fight straight up vs bio early midgame. Vs Marines, Dragoons in Mode 2 + Stalkers will work well. Vs Mauruaders you will mix in zealots. Vs Medi's you will mix in Sentinels for Phase Missile. - Vs Zerg, you are probably less likely to take advantage of the mode-switching, but there are definitely still instances where I believe it will be benefiical. Nevertheless, this mode-switching is mostly intended to give Stalker and Dragoon clear differentiated roles in the TvP matchup. In ZvP, they already work differently I believe. ' Why this the Firebat/Maurauder mode couldn't work, but this can When a Maurauder could switch to the Firebat mode, it made it impossible for the protoss opponent to counter the bio unit composition. In the end it resulted in zealots being useless vs bio. But this mode switching is different - The Dragoon doesn't become significant better or worse vs some type of units. What instead differs, is the way you micro them and how you position your army. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On October 03 2013 05:08 Hider wrote: I think the strategical aspect of Sc2 is hugely overrated in general (mostly by casuals), and we definitely shouldn't replace a high skill cap with more "strategy". But why is the unit-control argument (aka more micro and multitasking) irrelevant? I believe that if a game is too easy, then this is often due to the fact that players aren't incentiviized for attacking enough or doing enough multitaskbased attacks. For instance, protoss in Sc2 is a "great" example of that. To me that is a design-flaw with the game as it results in 3 problems; 1) Too easy mechanics/low skill cap 2) Boring to spectate 3) Boring to play (I feel that way at least). But what if protoss could be much more aggressive instead? Wouldn't that solve all of the problems? No matter how much thought you put into micro for Starbow, you are unlikely to "invent" new paradigms for microing that somehow makes micro 100% more intense in Starbow than in Brood War. That is the core of my argument. I don't disagree with you about the importance of micro, incentives to attack and multitask. I just think you have probably done most of what was necessary to be done to promote that area of gameplay. You're already better than SC2. With that said, I still don't think micro replaces throwing one huge aspect of time management out of the window (and that was my argument). Making macro meaningful and deep is a difficult issue though. I myself have a hard time coming up with ideas that seem obviously great and without any flaws. Keep discussing. And I don't think you should be too quick/drastic about changing your current configuration unless you all agree that a newly presented idea is clearly superior (while that long ass post wanted you to start discussing this, it didn't really have an answer for how to solve the problem). | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
- SCV calldown removed - *New* Reactorcopy, requires OB upgrade Makes two units simultaneously for 15seconds(Works on cc, production building), cost 30energy. - Scan redesigned. Do not share energy. Unlocks it for 50/50, 17.6 Buildtime on each OB(Can not build workers while upgrading). (To get more bw balance). I think we will risk creating more assymmetry if we make it possible for zerg and protoss to boost their worker count (queen + chrono), but not terran. The problem with the current approach where terran can boost income quite dramatically with FE + scv calldown and production quite significantly as well with Vultures, is that both of them give too extreme advantages. So IMO there are three types of solutions; Solution 1: Maintain a worker boost at OC. Keep reactor, but nerf it. Solution 2: Remove eco boost at OC. Add production boost at OC and remove reactor. Solution 3: "Copy" Protoss and zerg mechanics by giving terran both a production- and an ecooriented macro ability + remove reactor. I feel that solution 3 will most effectively replciate BW balance as it gives terran the same benefits as the other races and we can with the use of math better compare the advantages of the abilties. With solution 2 we don't know what will happen if we remove ecoboost for terran,but keep chrono at nexus as an option. That could likely force terran to allin way more often than in BW. Regardless of what solution is choosen, I think energy cost of scv calldown should be increased from 25 to 60. It really doesn't make sense at the current cost. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
I think we will risk creating more assymmetry if we make it possible for zerg and protoss to boost their worker count (queen + chrono), but not terran. My reactorcopy works on cc(can make two scvs at the same time) | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
On October 03 2013 07:06 Foxxan wrote: My reactorcopy works on cc(can make two scvs at the same time) Oh - my bad. I guess it has a similar effect as my suggestion, except that my suggestion is divided into two pieces (as I believe this makes it feel a bit less similar to CB). | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
@Macro mechanics + Show Spoiler + I can agree on a production booster on OC, since both Z and P have that in some form. I have an old file where such an ability is already built and works. You drop a "reactor" on top of any building. (It looks better than it sounds.) The next 2 units you produce from the building will finish at the same time. The problem is that the ability feels very messy when used in a real game, especially when there are many buildings involved. It messes a lot with the queues. If you use the ability at the wrong time, just when a unit is almost finsihed, you gain no effect from it, and some other uninteded consequenses. So the easiest thing would probably be if the "calldowned reactor" just increased production speed by X% during Y seconds. Chrono boost though.. : / Maybe this can work in combination with some kind of nerfed Calldown SCV. Thus all races have a way to boost econ and army production. And all methods require APM and attention. Thus, we get a skill cap in macro. I will however not bring back the Queen ability to plant eggs on the ground. (As a second version of Larvas,) It was ok, but it felt very messy for the players. It was very rarely the position of the eggs mattered. They were just planted next to the Hatchery anyway. Inject is simple and fine. And there are other stuff to do with the Queens energy, which gives a bit more versatility to it. So I don´t mind if Inject is "boring" since it gets the job done. But ofc the stats can be adjusted. And the other points some of you made regarding macro mechanics, for example to make the structures start with less energy, sounds good. We can settle on exact balanced numbers once we get the design of the macro mechanics finished. @Stalker/Dragoon/Immortal + Show Spoiler + I will not make the Dragoon morph into two versions or anything like that. It seems like doing work in an area where it is not required. Besides, I try to avoid messing with the BW core units. But I am open to do something more with Stalker, Dragoon and Immortal - dynamic. If anyone has a realistic design idea on what to do with the Stalker, I am willing to try it. If we can get Zealot, Dragoon/Immortal, Stalker to be core units who are useful in all match-ups, and feels unique compared to each other, then I am all happy. But so far no superior solution has been presented. (Not even the way it works now.) @Limited selection + Show Spoiler + I can only dream about this. If the sc2 editor was a paradise I would set limited selection to 0. Or 1. ^^ I love limited selection. But I can not do anything about it. So unlimited selection must stay. And I have tried to battle it in different ways - make harassment and smaller skirmishes matter, make sure a lot of unit types must be microed in different ways and yada yada. @Smart casting + Show Spoiler + I thought this could not be implemented. But it seems like Dec let some light shine on this matter. Would the game be more fun if we disabled smart casting? Exactly what would it do? | ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
OSC
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
