|
After more than a month of discussion Xiphias finally makes a suggestion for the Stalker in tune with what I have been suggesting to do all along - but better.
Protoss does not need another unit to fit in with the main army. Protoss needs a unit that can function like a Vulture or Mutalisk. Doing good in harassment situations, but mainly providing map control with speed and the threat of picking off stray units.
This will encurage smaller hit squads from both sides, as lone units are vulnerable, but big clumps are too slow to react to multiple threats.
In short, a mobile fragile Stalker (not sure that 5 range is even needed with dragoons in the game) will allow Protoss to compete in the mobile map control game more readily.
I would also like to see a Stalker that does not rely on kiting, but rather picking good engagements with supirior mobility.
|
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.
I like the 1st graphics of the 1st picture better.
Is the extra opportunity cost of scan really a problem here? Isn't that just giving players more decisions?
|
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.
Regarding Stalker > bio, it should obvious that it was due to me mistakenly believing that Maurauders only dealt 12 damage to Stalkers.
But the real issue isn't with the balance of bio, but with the kind of "micro" it rewards.
Basically this is how the micro works;
- Bio engages Stalkers/Dragoons with no or very few zealots --> Protoss needs to kite here all day.
- Protoss mixes in quite a lot of slowzealots but few Stalkers/Dragoons --> Bio kites untill zealots are dead and takes very little damage in the proces due to the low mix of Stalkers + Dragoons + medi healing --> Then protoss needs to kite with his remaining Dragoon + Stalkers.
Basically my point here is protoss can never fight straight up due to slowzealots being awfull vs stimmed bio units. Protoss is in desperate need of a non-kiting oriented units that lets them actually take a straight up fight.
Again, this isn't about balance, its a design related issue, because protoss can easily survive if they just kite all day. However, watching bio units run after stimmed protoss units gets repetitive very quickly if that's the only type of micro that is practical.
|
Terran bio
Hard to make protoss able to fight headon without anysort of aoe attacks. Especially now that kabel want this game done. They work like that in broodwar, their hightech is the best hightech in the game. To fight zerg, they need aoe. Same against bio terran
With the new sentinel, i think we can see some more action here and not going reaver asap might be viable. But for this to happen, terranbio will need something against the reaver to work or else reaver>sentinel quite heavy iam afraid.
What sentinel might do for protoss, is give them some more mobileaction with sentinels/speedlots/archon against bio terran.
If protoss needs to go reaver, i believe they need some range support so more heavyfocus on dragoons/stalkers there.
Overcharge V.1
I like this one. Feels like a good core macromechanic now for terran(which works for both workers, and production, and easier to balance.
Scan
What it do for terran.
- Can scan worker count(especially versus zerg)
- Scan for flanks, where enemy armee is.
- Scan for hightech units(guardians, carriers, defilers, arbiters)
- Frequently used in tvt
- Able to move out without scienvessel if he want to
- If bio works versus protoss, more scenarios involving scan will come to play
Sharing cooldown is something that is not good, atleast i think so.
Up to 3 Scans can be saved in the OC. The OC can "regenerate" Scan charges
If the user can see how much time left till next scan, iam all for this.
I take it as it is confusing for the player if the energy is not shared?
|
(Sorry for contributing to the discussion while being mostly uninformed about Starbow!)
On October 03 2013 21:44 Kabel wrote:@Macro mechanics>>> + Show Spoiler +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: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YMzZsz3.jpg) 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.) Thoughts about Terran macro mechanic? <<<
+ Show Spoiler [Some notes on the mule in SC2:] +
1: mules are functional in that they provide an opportunity cost to scan
2. frequently the gain from mules is so big that you are discouraged from scan use
3: they allow you to focus mining on one base, especially useful in late-game for quickly scavenging a single base
4: you are not punished for losing workers as much because you have mules
5: you are not punished for unused energy
- I think that for a new macro mechanic it's desirable to have #1, but the frequency of #2 could be toned down.
- I don't think that #3 fits with the game very well, because you don't mine out your bases too quickly, so all it serves to do is to reduce terran's need for map presence. This would be different if you would mine out quickly enough (or alternatively if the game was slow paced enough) that you had to constantly move around to secure a new base. This could contrast with e.g. zerg economy which would be focused on getting a decent distribution of workers across all their bases.
- I think #5 is a negative aspect to mules. Morrow suggested once to add a 15s cooldown to the mule, this would punish you for not being punctual with energy use, but I think a solution like that creates the worst sort of difficulty: pretend-difficulty that can be completely overcome by pro gamers while serving as a barrier for lower level players. The inject model is fairer in that case, since it's impossible to do perfectly.
Scan is not one-dimensional, so it's acceptable that it does not have a cooldown and can make use of built-up energy. For a new ability it should take the example of scan rather than the mule: proper use should not be obvious and therefore the punishment is in using it improperly rather than missing out on a very harsh timer.
I think it's also a good idea to limit OC energy reserve to a maximum of 100 energy, to add some urgency to the use of its abilities.
+ Show Spoiler [comments on your proposal] +
I think version 1 is too similar to the reactor and that version 2 is too similar to chronoboost. I wouldn't advise creating a chronoboost like ability and then suggesting that you can always differentiate it from chronoboost later on, because then you basically have nothing concrete yet. I also think that turning the scan into something that's cooldown based will make it seem like it's 'free', and in general I would say that without a concrete ability for v2 you should never consider changing the scan purely to make that work.
+ Show Spoiler [my own suggestion] +
I'm wondering if I should stick with the theme of "call down X", since that's the purpose of the orbital command. Normally the implementation of an idea matters more than some sort of mysterious 'potential quality' and that's why I think you might as well try to stay close to the lore.
There is also some difficulty since terran already has a production mechanic, namely the reactor and tech lab. I don't feel that it's necessary to add something that specifically speeds up production on top of that.
I don't know if economy boosts would be problematic in Starbow though.
One idea that I could think of (it's not original though):
- improving an SCV with increased mining, permanent
It has some advantages over the mule:
- you can kill them which encourages harassment
- you can't strip mine a base in two minutes unless you had 24 improved SCV's already
It doesn't fit in with my Call Down lore idea though.
Maybe another idea, more similar to call down supply this time, is to allow you to call down health packages like the ones seen in the campaign. This could be a defensive ability perhaps.
Or you could have an ability that barricades buildings, giving them more health and armor to withstand busts. In theory you could even give some of these abilities to the planetary fortress, upgrading would give a package of stuff for one-time use.
Sorry if these ideas are silly given I'm uninformed about Starbow. :o
|
@Grumbels
You can play the mod with a start edition if I'm not mistaken by partying up with someone who has HOTS.
As basically everyone in the channel has hots when we play you'd have no problem participating. The only drawback is you would only be able to play Terran.
|
Nice to see someone new trying to contribute - remember though that this mod has been under development for a long time, and we are starting to get a good pool of tried ideas that simply didn't work.
As for your suggestion - Calldown X is more of a SC2 thing than a general Terran thing, so focussing on keeping in theme really doesn't involve the calldown of things.
Regarding scan, it really comes down to the question of sharing an energy pool with the main macro mechanic. The scan "ammo system" is a great idea to overcome this, but I would like to see scan still having a small energy cost, too keep the Terran honest on how he spends his OC energy.
There is still a problem in how to make the calldown reactor work with limited time on reactors - But it might work like this: for 1,5 minutes (or 4 supply worth of units) the building targetted can produce double units. If the timer runs out before the reactor has produced 4 supply of units, the unit in production (if any) gets added to the normal building queue, and half the spent production time is immediately added to the unit in the main production (better than wasting it, but not much).
|
Purely from the perspective of elegant design, creating a special system for scan doesn't fit those criteria. Scan and some other macro mechanic could be energy based and fit on the orbital command neatly, using a framework for design that's already common. The choice between scan and another ability is a natural way to impose limits on either ability and increase decision making.
There is the difficulty of finding something suitable to pair with scan, but there is always room for more creativity. In the end you have to do what works though, so if a cooldown based scan mechanic pans out that could be fine.
|
|
|
I would change a few things in terran:
- Removed Firebat, because now I look like the marauder and 6 units in Barrack.
- Added Hellbat (4 units in Factory) with the Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade.
- I would add to the starport to tech tech - Science Vessel upgrade's RETURN.
- Fussion Core add Behemoth Reactor and Weapon Refit for Battlecruiser
- Engineering Bay add Hi-Sec Auto Tracking, Building Armor and Neosteel Frame and changes coast
I think add TEST Map for this.
|
|
|
On October 04 2013 06:18 Laertes wrote:
I have to disagree you grumbels somewhat. Usually I take your stance but I honestly like the 3 scan model. What you are saying would make sense about 2 months ago. Last month, we decided that Terran should not need to choose between scan and the other ability(Scan should only really be competing with itself, this worked really well in BW where terran had scan and nothing else. Remember that the nature of both abilities means they would compete which each other heavily for energy, to the point where you would not be able to use either maximally, this is contrary to the two abilities where both abilities would be very broken if they didn't have to compete with each other. IF the scan doesn't work out completely, here's another idea so that the two abilities don't screw each other up. Make sensor tower an add-on to the OC, it can only be built near to or as an ability on the OC, and has a separate energy pool for scans. Meanwhile terran gets a very different setup from either protoss or zerg where their abilities don't have to compete with each other, but are decision and energy related abilities that require a lot of usage to be maximally effective. In the end, this would make PvT better because terran would have more map awareness and require more skill.
Sorry, I didn't want to drag up old discussions. (the danger of not being informed  ) Scan does indeed function well on its own. I don't think it's very 'neat' to have an energy based ability and a cooldown based one on the same building though, so I don't know if you would want to add an additional macro mechanic to the orbital in that case.
|
Any news update on Nullsphre?
|
I think what we need to do is remove any pretense that our macro mechanics are anything more than a replacement for BW's lack of auto-mine. They're less obviously annoying, and have some use outside of being apm sinks, but at the core that's all they are. Instead of going back to base to send your workers to mine every 20 seconds, we're using chronoboost every 40 seconds. We're injecting all our bases every 40 seconds. We're calling down scvs every 40 seconds. Each one of these forces you to move the camera back to base and make a couple clicks. It's the same shit as rallying workers in BW.
LaLush's recommendation to make the macro mechanics happen more often would push them even closer to BW. I don't know if he realized the connection or not.
Anyway. In my opinion, we should slow down worker production rates, to about 90% of BW's speed. With perfectmacro mechanic usage, 110%. Or something like that.
Secondly, remove Rift, scan, creep tumors, etc. Or at least separate them all from the same energy bank as the macro mechanics. It's dishonesty to say that there's any real strategic choice between Rift and Chronoboost or between Inject and Creep Tumor. The macro mechanic is always better, and is always used.
But you'll say "oh but terran's choice between scv calldown and scan is a real choice" - yes, yes it is. And we've been forced to give T the best macro mechanic because of it. The game needs to be balanced with scan in mind (especially now that Sci vessels are moving to Fusion Core tech). Etc. We're always going to have trouble with T's macro mechanic as long as it's the only one tied down by secondary balance concerns.
Here's my proposition: Make all macro mechanics (Chrono, Inject, SCV calldown) - Not energy based, but purely cooldown-limited. Balance the game asuming that all 3 races are played with perfect macro - macro that doesn't impede on other sides of their gameplay. Orbitals get a scv calldown every X seconds, and the untouched energy bar can be shared between 3 strategic spells (Scan vs Call-Down AutoTurret vs NewSpellX). Likewise Queens can have 3 non-macro utility spells that are free to be used and do not interfere with macro. Just spitballing - Creep Tumor, Spawn Changeling, Transfuse. or w/e.
The end result of this all is that we'll have an easier time balancing the macro mechanics, and still have the strategic fun decisions.
|
@Regarding Protoss vs Bio
+ Show Spoiler +Regarding Stalker > bio, it should obvious that it was due to me mistakenly believing that Maurauders only dealt 12 damage to Stalkers.
But the real issue isn't with the balance of bio, but with the kind of "micro" it rewards.
Basically this is how the micro works;
- Bio engages Stalkers/Dragoons with no or very few zealots --> Protoss needs to kite here all day.
- Protoss mixes in quite a lot of slowzealots but few Stalkers/Dragoons --> Bio kites untill zealots are dead and takes very little damage in the proces due to the low mix of Stalkers + Dragoons + medi healing --> Then protoss needs to kite with his remaining Dragoon + Stalkers.
Basically my point here is protoss can never fight straight up due to slowzealots being awfull vs stimmed bio units. Protoss is in desperate need of a non-kiting oriented units that lets them actually take a straight up fight.
Again, this isn't about balance, its a design related issue, because protoss can easily survive if they just kite all day. However, watching bio units run after stimmed protoss units gets repetitive very quickly if that's the only type of micro that is practical.
>>>+ Show Spoiler +I don´t mind your intention - to make Bio vs Protoss battles more fun in micro. If we find a way to make it, then all is good!
You seem to describe it like this:
1. Bio generally beats Protoss core units.
2. Early in the game, Protoss must kite with his Dragoons/Stalkers when fighting vs Marines/Marauders.
3. Later in the game, Terran must kite with his Marines & Marauders vs Zealots.
4. When the Zealots are dead, Marines and Marauders shread Dragoons & Stalkers.
5. Protoss need AoE to deal with massive Bio armies.
6. The problem is that those kind of battles are boring.
7. Your suggestion is that we make sure Protoss has a core unit who can fight in an even way vs Bio. Thus P can rely less on AoE, kiting & running away.
Correct me if I have missunderstood you on any point.
I just wonder if we have the same picture of the current situation.
How brutal is the situation in real games?
Does Terran Bio slaughter Protoss core units in a lame way, almost as in SC2?
Or can Protoss core take a decent fight vs Bio?
The testing I have done in the editor seems to indicate that Bio is a bit stronger than Protoss core units, in pure fights. Not brutally stronger. Just a bit more cost efficient in a straight up engament. Which I think is good, since Protoss has much stronger late game AoE. If Protoss core units are also stronger, as in BW, then Bio will never see play at all, except for early pushes.
The problem is that those are two crucial aspects of the races:
- Bio is quite low HP, cheap, heavy damage. (Marine, Marauder)
- Protoss has strong AoE. (Storm & Reaver)
I don´t mind if we find a way to improve Bio vs Protoss battles in terms of fun. But I am just careful to make too game changing or fundamental changes, like implementing a Dragoon with two modes. After all, Bio vs Protoss battles happen in maybe 10-20% of all TvPs?
Now of course, one can argue that every aspect of the game should be improved if possible. But I have to put a limit on what I am capable of doing with this game. Aim for the stars, hit the moon. It can be quite cool too. ^^
Too many large changes at this point requires even more work and time.
Any news update on Nullsphre?
>>>+ Show Spoiler +I have not done anything with it yet. Both Null sphere and Safeguard could need a rework/fine tuning. But I will look into that soon. Atm I try to get the macro mechanics to work ok between the races.
@Macro mechanics
>>>+ Show Spoiler +
If Terran gets an production boosting ability that requires APM, maybe it ends up sharing energy with scan. Or maybe not. Nothing is decided on this yet.
Edit: Happy B-day Fishgle!
|
|
|
@fishgle, at some point it becomes cleaner to just remove worker rally. *click* for larva every 40 seconds is equally mindless and uninteresting. If it's accepted that mules vs scan is an interesting choice, removing it should feel like a step backwards. It's still possible to create an improved system within this new framework of course, but initially it will be less interesting.
You have to invest into either army, scouting, economy, technology or production all the time. Therefore it should be possible to create competing abilities. Chronoboost competes with itself, it is not necessary to share energy with another ability, but for inject/tumor and mule/scan that's different. I think that for the queen it's a false choice and it's not that interesting (see my post here for some of my other thoughts on inject larva: + Show Spoiler +On September 26 2013 04:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 26 2013 03:10 Grumbels wrote:On September 26 2013 02:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 25 2013 18:24 Grumbels wrote:
Macro mechanics are a crutch to make the game more difficult, so I would say they're an ugly addition to the game, but that's okay, sometimes these things are necessary to fix the game for various difficulties. So I don't (completely) disagree with them conceptually, and they do contribute to race identity, but they have obvious negative side effects that Blizzard in their incompetence never reigned in. Excess larva breaks zerg economy, mules break terran economy, this wouldn't have happened if inject would give maybe 2 larva, and mules would give you maybe 160 minerals. (example values) What people wanted was a macro mechanic. BW's macro mechanic required selecting a built worker, and then right clicking on a mineral patch. Devs thought this was tedious, so they made a different macro mechanic for each race. They are both arbitrary mechanics with neither one being more "crutch" than the other--however. I think that because the three different macro mechanics are, well, different, Blizzard has created a scenario where people argue about which ones are unfair usually leading to people saying that they're all unfair. But whether you're landing perfect injects or right-clicking on minerals all day, they're both just things you're forced to do in your base. The biggest difference being that it was much more difficult to manage a multibase economy in Broodwar than it was in Starcraft 2 because it was physically more difficult to reach every single base. This lead to "Macro" and "Micro" players since unless you were an A level player you either only had the skills to control units or only had the skills to control workers+production.
Boxer really paved the way for fast hands play and became synonymous with good micro play: but it was iloveoov and (NalRa?) who really paved the way to the emergence of "macro play" emphasizing production capabilities and worker saturation over cool micro tricks. Thus the term "macro" player started becoming the be-all-end-all descriptor for "good player."
I find that most SC2 players I've talked to call themselves macro players because they like having 3-4 bases. But a Macro player in Broodwar was someone whose hands were actually fast enough to manage 3-4 bases wherein most people just were not fast enough to actually fit that criteria. Inject larva is an awful ability, both in concept and in execution. I would like to see you defend the ability outside of sophistry like: "all mechanics are equally arbitrary". Inject larva is just a cheaper macro hatch... All it does is provide larva, much like extra hatcheries in Broodwar provided larva. Injects takes attention to make work, as does extra macro hatches. The drawback is that injects are attached to 2 supply units as opposed to the -1 supply used by a macro hatch in Broodwar. It's not exactly something "new" or "different" from what was already present in the previous game.... Mules, Creep, Chrono, Warp-Ins, etc... those are completely things provided to a game that wasn't previously available. But extra larva? That's the whole point of macro hatches in Broodwar. Now whether you prefer seeing 3-5 hatcheries in base or seeing 1-2 hatcheries in a base tended by queens is arbitrary. Some will think one is more interesting/makes sense than the other. But the queen was not the unit that suddenly allowed zerg to remax quickly--they already had that in the prior game. Being able to easily select all their larva and immediately start production with those larva is what allowed it. In Broodwar, you still had to move your screen over each and every single hatchery of which there was many. Inject is bad for a lot of reasons, only some of them having to do with larva. 1. The choice between creep and inject is rarely a real choice. 2. Much of the difficulty of inject larva can be circumvented by trickery with hotkey set-ups. 3. Any ability that gives you excess larva is a dangerous idea as it can snowball zerg economy. 4. Stockpiling so much larva without having to invest in additional hatcheries is quite broken in late-game. 5. The difficulty of the ability is very artificial, it's very much tacked on in an attempt to give zerg more mechanical difficulty. The design seems very ugly to me. Many of the macro mechanics in Starcraft 2 were added to the game quite late in development, there was always a strong risk that some would not fit into the game very well. I think that inject larva is the main offender here.
And happy birthday.
|
How to balance a Terran macro mechanic?
If we stay with this:
- Chrono boost
- Inject (Sbow version) & Nurturing swarm
- T drops a "one-time-Reactor" on top of a production facility. It can produce 2 units simultaneously. Then the reactor-thing is removed. A new one must be dropped etc.
All mechanics should be decently equal in strength, require somewhat equal APM. But if the APM shall be even, the energy cost of the spells most be even too. If Ts ability for example costs 50 or 75, it will be used less often, and is thereby less demanding.
How can one calculate the strength each ability has on macro?
Cause it seems like Terran will have the strongest one?
(Unless CB or Inject are very buffed.)
Ps. If the reactor-ability gets implemented, it will work on any Terran unit built from a production facility. Drop it, build 2 siege tanks or 2 vessels. I don´t think it can be restricted to only work on certain units.
|
That is why suggested making the reactor drop supply based rather than unit based. This will easily limit the abusability of saving reactors for things such as Tanks or Science vessels, instead of using them for Marines and Vultures.
Boost production of 4 Marines or 1 Science vessel... what would you choose?
Boost production of 1 Marine or 1 Science vessel... Yeah one choice is obviously better.
|
If Ts ability for example costs 50 or 75, it will be used less often, and is thereby less demanding.
This is really a minor minor issue. IMO CB isn't particularly mechanically demanding as you can use 2-3 at the same time.
How can one calculate the strength each ability has on macro?
Calculate it based on how much reward/energy (not coldown).
Cause it seems like Terran will have the strongest one?
Not if you increase scv energy cost and make the reactor-thing twice as good as chronoboost (for twice the energy cost).
@ Scan
With these new abilities, there is an extra cost related to scanning. So while unlocking scan is cheaper than in bw, the added opportunity costs increases the true cost of scan over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
