@Macro mechanics What if a queen could "train" a unit. It would plant a egg and keep channelling on it till the unit is done, but you need to physically place where the egg is. Less cumbersome eh?
@Stalker Just gonna reitterate Danko's idea. Machine stalker with a slow start up time (think minigun) so you blink at the last second for maximum damage. Just a thought, and it is definently differentiated.
@Limited Selection AHhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We really do have more skirmises. Armies are not afraid to attack each other (you can always retreat from a fight). Hydras can pick at the edges of a toss deathball. It is CHOICE! Not forced. That is why I love the current pathing. You can either keep em nice and tight OR spread out. Entirely up to the player.
@Smart casting Again, sc2 players I fear might never even try to make a transition due to this. Certain spells I wouldn't mind seeing this for, storm, irradiate, but it still feels more like the game interface being dumb as opposed to designing the game with a nice smart interface in mind.
@Macro mechanics What if a queen could "train" a unit. It would plant a egg and keep channelling on it till the unit is done, but you need to physically place where the egg is. Less cumbersome eh?
Why?
@Stalker Just gonna reitterate Danko's idea. Machine stalker with a slow start up time (think minigun) so you blink at the last second for maximum damage. Just a thought, and it is definently differentiated.
Yes, it changes the way the attack works. Why this kind of attack? What kinds of dynamics is this suppose to create? Place in tech tree? potential stats? When will this type of stalker be useful? (Just overall broader questions)
@Limited Selection AHhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We really do have more skirmises. Armies are not afraid to attack each other (you can always retreat from a fight). Hydras can pick at the edges of a toss deathball. It is CHOICE! Not forced. That is why I love the current pathing. You can either keep em nice and tight OR spread out. Entirely up to the player.
It can´t be done anyways. : / But since I can´t sleep I might aswell ponder a bit over this. The main advantages I see with it are:
1. It adds a higher skill ceiling in army management/multitasking. 2. It makes larger armies harder to control, while smaller armies are easier to control. (<<<<--- Important!!) 3. It helps combats last even longer
Number 2 is the most important aspect IMO. Due to the way attack/life works, Starcraft always favors the bigger fish. If 1 Marine fights vs another Marine, it will deal ca 40 dmg before it dies. If 1 Marine fights vs 10 other Marines, it will deal ca 6 dmg before it dies.
If we bring this up in a larger scale, the large army will always beat the smaller army AND make the smaller army less efficient. If it is as easy to control both armies, the larger army is always favoured. But if it is harder to control the larger army, the small army gains an important advantage.
Famous example:
Despire the Zerg player having the stronger army & shorter supply distance, we see this prolonged engagement. We see the skill required from both players - Terran must micro his small army very well and focus fire, but Zerg must ALSO micro, co-ordinate his units, flank, surround for defence. This does not happen to the same degree in an unlimited selection situation. It would be as easy to control the strong Zerg army as the small Terran army. And Zerg would win this fight easier, as long as he has stronger army.
In Sbow, in a similar scenario, it would be much easier to select ALL Lurkers, Hydras and Zerglings nearby and A-move towards the Marines. And a small offensive skirmish would require a lot more work from the small army, compared to the work required by the defending larger army. If there was a selection limit, smaller skirmishes would be even more encouraged/stronger.
Now it is true that we encourage players to do skirmishes, spread out their units etc. And I think we do quite a good job. But I don´t think "forcing" players to do something is necessarily a bad thing. Every kind of rule within a game is forced upon the participants. If a "forced" rule helps to steer the game into a more fun direction, then it is positive for everyone.
Imagine if unlimited Chess existed. A square can hold unlimited number of pieces. Its of course lame when players place a lot of pieces in the same square. Its more fun and strategic when pieces are spread out over the chess board. There are two approaches; - Encourage players to NOT put several pieces in the same square. (For example making it a bad strategy) - Set a rule that makes players able to have only 1 piece in each square. (Remove the possibility)
If a forced rule adds more depth and fun to the game, then everyone is happy.
Again, these are just the advantages I see in a selection limit of maybe 16 units. Perhaps there are other approaches to reach the same missing aspects I mentioned above. Or there might be flaws with it. Just some thoughts. But then again, its impossible, so it does not matter.
@Smart casting Again, sc2 players I fear might never even try to make a transition due to this. Certain spells I wouldn't mind seeing this for, storm, irradiate, but it still feels more like the game interface being dumb as opposed to designing the game with a nice smart interface in mind.
I have an old file where such an ability is already built and works. You drop a "reactor" on top of any building
It has to drop an reactor? Maybe thats the part that messes things up? My suggestion dont work? The "reactorcopy". It just simple let that building train two units at the same time for x time. When the time is over, the second unit gets in queue.
Works on both command centers, and production buildings.
Maybe this can work in combination with some kind of nerfed Calldown SCV
It sounded to me scv calldown was hard to balance. 30 or 40 seconds cooldown doesnt matter, since it regs 25energy per 40 sec. Higher cooldown than 40seconds is untried but feels long(?) Remove it? Have the "reactocopy" on both cc and macro buildings?
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.
Hmm yes, i was afraid of this. Easiest thing to do with the queens. Simple select them, press "inject", and those eggs just plants. One solution to this, is the player needs to choose where he plants the egg? Just like inject is now, the player needs to move to that location and press "inject" on the hatchery, now instead of pressing it on the hatchery he need press it on the ground. Why exactly did players plant the eggs near hatcheries btw? Did she also have inject on hatch while having eggs on the ground?
Although, i can guarantee that with better players, they wanna choose where to plant those eggs. Especially if it works on creep only. Creep spread gets another factor. You are under attack at your natural? Place your eggs there.
You are going for an attack? Place the eggs furthest away where your creep are. Bring an Overlord, plant creep, now plant eggs. The creep spread gets another meaning.
Would be pretty cool and feels more zergish to me. Another thing with queen that would feel a bit more zergish is the inject as it is now but more bursty.
Macro mechanics
- What do i want with the macro mechanics? More impactful - You choose economy, or more units - Right now, the more units do not feel as an impact to me
Did he just use chronoboost on his two gateways? Ok. No big deal.
I want another reaction than the one above. "did he just...." Oh....dang!
- More impactful, what i mean is: Should feel more like a threat to the opponent. - Right now when someone choose economy, the other chooses macro units. The better choice to me feels to be economy 7-8/10 times.
Why could more impact be good? - Because it could reduce the uptime that happens in rts games. - Could start the action sooner rather than later. - Potential to become an important factor(without going all-in or cheese)
Stalker To differentiate it.
- Range 4(no range upgrade) - Comes from robotic, 200/100/4 cost, 100hp/200shield. 2.5 movement speed Armor type: Armored(big unit), 2.4 attackcooldown, +4attack each upgrade - 35 explosive damage - Blink redesigned. When hit, can not use blink. Two sec casttime on blink, 50% reduced range(can still jump cliffs).
Other possible solution:
- Comes from robotic. 150/100/3, Range eight. 1.75 movement speed, 14normal damage, 1.2 attackcooldown. 100hp/100shield - Same blink suggestion
Besides, I try to avoid messing with the BW core units.
But didn't you already kinda do that with increasing attack cooldown from 1.8 to 2. Mode 1 Dragoon will in most situations still feel very similar to BW Dragoon. Only noticeable difference is vs Vultures.
But I am open to do something more with Stalker, Dragoon and Immortal - dynamic.
The problem with adjusting these two units in trying to obtain the desired dynamic is that our options are very limited. Anyway, let me first describe the 4 criterias that I want to see in the new line-up.
Criteria 1; Protoss should be able to fight bio straight on without relying too much on kiting. Removal of Firebat-Maurauder definitely helps, but I believe that slow-zealots are still quite weak vs a "normal" mix of Marines and Maurauders. Its very easy for the bio player to kite the zealots in the start of the battle, and after they are dead, it is the protoss that is forced to kite. Those type of battles are IMO a bit lame.
Criteria 2; Add more unique micro into how you control the Stalker and the Dragoon.
Criteria 3; If possible, add unique micro to how the opponent micro's against the Stalker and the Dragoon.
Criteria 4; Clear roles for the protoss gateway units. If the units overlap in some situations, then they must have clear synergy effects to reward mixing them together.
The limit of the Stalker Now the reason we can't really fix these issues with changing stats of the Stalker is that the Stalker is a "kite-unit". If we make it better in a straight up fight, then it will autmotically also be better at kiting.
The problem can be seen this way; - Let's say we nerf the movement speed boost of Stim or make bio units less mobile in some way --> Zealots stronger vs bio
- But at the same time, that will also make kiting with Stalkers - this also applies to Dragoons and Immortals as well - better vs. bio.
So regardless of how we try to tweak stats, it is my belief that we can't really fix the core issue without changing the mobility of the protoss ranged units.
The limit of the Immortal If we put the constraint on the Immortal that a mix of it + a mix of Stalkers = Dragoon, then it is also obvious that it can't solve the bio issue. Ofc. one could consider to make it a slower, low range more buffy unit (like Mode 2 Dragoon), however that will likely mess up balance heavily vs Lurkers and Siege tanks, and it will be unpractical to focus fire with it.
So while the Immortal + Stalker approach fulfills 2 of the criterias, its not really the optimal solution.
The limitless solution Here is where the 2-mode Dragoon solution shines. In theory, if it has the correct stats, then it will meet all of them!
- The Dragoon in Mode 1 with its slightly higher DPS still has the Immortal's focus fire function - The new Dragoon design makes it more practical for opponent to micro against it. - The new Dragoon design gives us the foundation for balancing protoss vs bio. If we choose any other long-ranged solution, then it will always be too much "kite"-oriented. But a slower, low-range, more buffy Dragoon is exactly what Protoss needs. Especially before leglots are out.
IMO experimenting with this concept (of a protoss lowrange, slower and more buffy unit) is definitely something that should be considered. Remember, that this is just an "alpha"-version of the concept.
I feel like big armies battling each other gets a bit too much unwarranted hate. IMO the problem isn't big armies fighting each other. Instead, the problem arises when;
1) We have turtle mode for the first 15 minutes 2) One big battle that is over in 3 seconds. 3) After the big battle, the game is decided
For various reasons, I don't believe that this occurs in Sbow, and thus I see no problem here.
Smart-casting
I prefer the approach of making spellcaster abilities weaker (which they already are) than forcing players to manually click on the unit.
Criteria 1; Protoss should be able to fight bio straight on without relying too much on kiting. Removal of Firebat-Maurauder definitely helps, but I believe that slow-zealots are still quite weak vs a "normal" mix of Marines and Maurauders. Its very easy for the bio player to kite the zealots in the start of the battle, and after they are dead, it is the protoss that is forced to kite. Those type of battles are IMO a bit lame.
I am not sure I agree here. Do we really want toss core units to shut down bio. Is not the point trying to make bio more viable? I think a protoss palyer should have to pay a great deal of attention to his army if Terran goes for an early bio push and try to kite with ranged units while teching to aoe, or he should lose. If toss core units can fight bio strait up with no problem then bio isnt really viable at all vs toss.
@ Stalker / Goon / Immortal.
This is my idea to try out: Let dragoon be the core all-around unit, adn let's try teh following stalker:
- Health: 80 hp and 40 shield. - Dmg: A lot vs light (15-20) and pretty poor vs armored (is that what is called Concussive Damage?) - Starts with range 5 and blink (no research needed) - Needs twilight counsel to be made. - Can be warped in with warp tech.
Now health and damage values can be changed, but the "feel" of the unit should be fragile, mobile, harasser. The mobile little brother of DT's. As sentinels can harass before reavers from Robo, so should Stalkers be able to harass before dt's from the templar tech route. I think this will clearly set it apart from the dragoon and give it a unique role. Question is, ofc, do Protoss need more harassers? But it is at least not overlapping with dragoon. I would at least like to see this tested.
On October 03 2013 17:42 Kergy wrote: Is this availabe in the starter edition? I don't plan on buying HotS anytime soon.
Sorry, you need HoTS to play this. This should become immensely popular, like DOTA, so we can remake it on a free platform
On October 03 2013 17:53 Grumbels wrote: I've always wanted vikings that could dodge missile shots by transforming, anyone thinks that's a good idea? :o
That is an awesome idea! I think mutas do shoot a projectile atm, so if the viking transform to ground was faster I think it could be easily done.
On October 03 2013 17:53 Grumbels wrote: I've always wanted vikings that could dodge missile shots by transforming, anyone thinks that's a good idea? :o
That is an awesome idea! I think mutas do shoot a projectile atm, so if the viking transform to ground was faster I think it could be easily done.
Well, being able to reactively transform to dodge projectiles is probably broken, but maybe if you would do it during the attack animation of the other unit it would be fun? (have to guess which unit gets targeted etc.) And I think in that case it will be only for corruptors and vikings, so it won't impact balance tooo much.
I don't think it is broken at all, sure you dodge a shot, but now you are on the ground and now you are slow and can't shoot air. Maybe let the transform to ground be instant, but the transform back into air take the same amount of time as usual so you can "hop" up and down.
On October 03 2013 19:32 Xiphias wrote: I don't think it is broken at all, sure you dodge a shot, but now you are on the ground and now you are slow and can't shoot air. Maybe let the transform to ground be instant, but the transform back into air take the same amount of time as usual so you can "hop" up and down.
It's usually easier to convince people of a change by explaining that it won't affect anything. ^^
And it's true, it's not necessarily broken. Even if theoretically you could dodge all shots then all your vikings are grounded and vulnerable and also, you would have to pay a lot of attention to micro, much like how mutalisks do well versus phoenixes even if theoretically they could lose.
I am not sure I agree here. Do we really want toss core units to shut down bio. Is not the point trying to make bio more viable? I think a protoss palyer should have to pay a great deal of attention to his army if Terran goes for an early bio push and try to kite with ranged units while teching to aoe, or he should lose. If toss core units can fight bio strait up with no problem then bio isnt really viable at all vs toss.
Well there are 3 different approache's that we could take in bio TvP "viability;
Approach 1: Make bio about surprising your opponent, similar to how it was in BW, where protoss needs to tech to reavers pretty fast. Thus, bio then basically become a coinflip build
Approach 2: Give protoss 2 options to beat bio. Either fast tech to AOE or make it possible for protoss to kite bio units. Currently Sbow works very much in this way.
Approach 3: Make it inefficient for protoss to kite vs bio by making it possible for Medi's to heal while bio units are moving forward while stimming. At the same time Protoss gets a new "unit/ability/transformation mode" that works as a less mobile shorter ranged unit - This unit makes it possible to fight straight up vs bio. I would also love to see a small reaver nerf combined with this approach, though less important for the time being.
IMO the latter approach wil create by far the most interesting games, and will be the easiest one to balance. I think most people's experience with playing or playing against bio is that it in some situations just feels insanely strong and in other situations really bad - IMO this is a cause of the current balance approch which creates these volatile situations - something I am not a fan of.
The problem with TvP micro in the current state, is that 95% of the micro you do is related to kiting. I feel that is way too dominant and I believe these two suggested changes in approach 3 can tone it down.
I'm a person who thinks spells should be powerful and game changing, and that spellcasters could be made a lot more powerful without smartcasting. I think it was a fun dynamic in BW where spellcasters were really powerful but slow moving and had a hard time getting across the map. So once you went for an attack, all the spellcasters you brought with you were the only spell casters you could expect to use. Sure your spellcasters were powerful, but the opponent had an extra minute while you were waiting for your spellcasters to get across the map. This made powerful spells more imbalanced in defense than in offense. Since the defender would:
#1: Have the defender's advantage equivalent to slow spellcasters running across the map. #2: Access to fresh reinforcement spellcasters right out of production.
With weaker and more dodgeable spells (unlimited selection). You lose part of this dynamic where an offensive player is pounding the weaker player but still has an almost impossible time completely breaking the player.
If I were you I'd go ahead with removing smartcast and buffing storm radius immediately. Don't know if defilers still are super slow and ahve a hard time getting off their dark swarms, but with smartcast you could make the argument that they should have an easier time getting off dark swarm. As everything about managing defilers suddenly becomes harder (consume, getting off swarm and plague).
Limited selection I'm not convinced will ever catch on again in the RTS genre. And it's nor relevant tot discuss in SC2, since you can't properly implement it anyway. I could see a restriction at 36-48 working (not too restrictive and frustrating for beginners, but still adds difficulty later in the game). But... irrelevant discussion.
On October 03 2013 20:27 Xiphias wrote: Storm radius is actually now the same as in BW. I think we should nerf it slightly if we keep smartcasting.
Only difference is that here it's a circle while in BW it's a square but we calculated the radius to give the same surface area.
What about casting range. Is it the same as in BW? From watching BW vods, it seems to be lower in Sbow, but that may be due to the fact that map sizes previously were larger in Sbow.
Yea. I don't think I seen the new storm radius. But without smart casting, there could be a case for even more powerful spells. Spells are much easier to dodge in SC2. So spells should be stronger (IMO -- but only if smartcast is removed).
If we want all races to have somewhat equally demanding macro mechanics in APM, that both can increase worker and unit production, then it all might look like this: P - Chrono boost and Rift Z - Inject, Nurturing Swarm and Creep T - Production booster at OC (Numbers ofc need to be balanced later on)
I am capable of making either of those two abilities for Terran at the OC:
Overcharge V.1 - X energy. Drop a thing on any production facility. That production facility can now produce 2 units at the same time. As soon as those two units are finished, the dropped thing is removed. (Otherwise, it is on the structure forever. Or until T starts to produce 2 units.) It is basically an individual one-time reactor dropped at a production facility. I can make it work on Command center too if needed.
Overcharge V.2 - X energy. Drop a thing on any production facility. It now produces units faster for X seconds. It is basically Chrono boost. If we want to differenatiate it, we can make it have a secondary effect if used on something else. (Chrono boost speeds up production OR speeds up a cannon.) If Terran drops this thing on a supply depot, they get temporarily supply, extra HP on the supply depot, it becomes cloaked or something else.
Graphic:
I think it can be done to look a little bit better.
Potential problems:
If this is an ability that is suppose to be frequently used, there won´t be much energy left for Scan. Which will probably limit the use of this ability quite a bit.
Potential solution: - Make Scan cost no energy but have a cooldown. (Or can be upgraded to cost no energy.) If the cooldown is too limiting, it can work like how Spider mines work at the Vulture. Up to 3 Scans can be saved in the OC. The OC can "regenerate" Scan charges. As soon as one is used, it takes 60 seconds to regenerate a new one. (Just as if Spider mines at the Vulture could regenerate a new one every 60 second, up to a maximum of 3.)
- Range 4(no range upgrade) - Comes from robotic, 200/100/4 cost, 100hp/200shield. 2.5 movement speed Armor type: Armored(big unit), 2.4 attackcooldown, +4attack each upgrade - 35 explosive damage - Blink redesigned. When hit, can not use blink. Two sec casttime on blink, 50% reduced range(can still jump cliffs).
Other possible solution:
- Comes from robotic. 150/100/3, Range eight. 1.75 movement speed, 14normal damage, 1.2 attackcooldown. 100hp/100shield - Same blink suggestion
This is my idea to try out: Let dragoon be the core all-around unit, adn let's try teh following stalker:
- Health: 80 hp and 40 shield. - Dmg: A lot vs light (15-20) and pretty poor vs armored (is that what is called Concussive Damage?) - Starts with range 5 and blink (no research needed) - Needs twilight counsel to be made. - Can be warped in with warp tech.
I like idea number 3 the most. (Although it is quite close to what we already have in the game.) The feeling of the Stalker remains, it gets a seperate place in the tech tree, it gets stronger harassment/map control potential with Blink, but still fragile enough so it can not always just fight straight on. Will this be enough to seperate the way Dragoons/Stalkers are microed?
One important thing is that we make sure it is really a useful unit in TvP, PvP and PvZ. Not just a Protoss Reaper who sometimes sees some play. Rather a unit who has potential to be important to have in the army. And it must have relationships vs other units. If P for example goes heavy Blink Stalkers, what is Z "supposed" to do vs them?
If anyone want to continue improve upon either of those ideas, or come up with new ones, that would be great.
Sorry Hider, but I really do not understand this idea at all. It is a very fundamental and time consuming change to do.
Do we have the same view on the current state of Bio vs Protoss? Few days ago you thought mass Stalkers > Bio. Now you seem to say that Bio > Protoss core units, unless Protoss kites heavily or get AoE. (Or have I missunderstood you?)
If Bio vs P micro should become more fun, I am sure there are less fundamental adjustements that can be made. You very often have good analyses and ideas. Phase Shield on Observer is a great example of that - such a simple ability solved so many problems. There must be similar and easier ways even in this area, especially since we still have the whole Stalker/Dragoon/Immortal piece of clay to shape.
Overcharge V one seems very Terranlike, similar to the Reactor, but better. Having the next started production be making 2 units instead of 1 is just like the Reactor and that is quite cool actually, unlike the Overcharge V two which is just another Chrono boost :/, even though it has potential as you said, "chronoing" different buildings like upgrades, defensive structures etc I still prefer version one.
When I'm nearing the TvZ mid/early game I always fear the Lurker rush and not having any scans since I have to spend it on economy, and even if there's no Lurker aggression, I still can't move out without stacking up alot of scans. You kind of have to either stack up ALOT of energy that could've been spent on SCVs; or you Science Vessel "rush" which is quite unlikely, being so delayed and expensive. I'm all for separating the OC Macro energy and the Scan energy in some way, and the "Spider mine Scan" seems perfect at solving this issue, quite genius actually. P.S *Fan du som e räven här, inte hålländaren* ;D
Overcharge V.1 - X energy. Drop a thing on any production facility. That production facility can now produce 2 units at the same time. As soon as those two units are finished, the dropped thing is removed. (Otherwise, it is on the structure forever. Or until T starts to produce 2 units.) It is basically an individual one-time reactor dropped at a production facility. I can make it work on Command center too if needed.
I like this A LOT. This makes it not a chrono boost (I hate it when the races have almost the same macro mechanics) AND it can be used to macro eco. Making two scv''s at ones is in the campaign so it should be doable in the editor. This could reaplace both calldown SCV and reactors in a very cute fashion.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YMzZsz3.jpg)
