|
If Orbital costs 125 or 150 minerals, and starts with enough energy for both Calldown SCV and Overcharge, then it will still be quite evened out for T? Overcharge only works once though, unlike a Reactor. But it can also be used to get two powerful units out, for example two Siege tanks.
A high initial investment cost and scv calldown aren't consistent with each other as you need an army to take advantage of the economic benefits scv calldown gives you (its a design problem). Thus for Scv calldown to see any real usage, the OC must be quite cheap to research (say at most 100 minerals, and no more than 35 BT).
A high investment fee for production boost can on the other hand work (its just a matter of balance here), but if you want to create an interesting decision between production boost and scv calldown, then the initial investment fee needs to be reduced.
But it was the same thing in BW for Factory and Starport?
Im only looking at TvZ bio opening here. Terran simply has less stuff early game than they would in BW, and zerg will have more stuff due to increased larva efficiency from the Queen. Thus, I believe terran needs an early game macromechanic that compensates them for its disadvantage.
Hence, I suggest that we use an approach where there is a true decision related to using scv calldown or production boost. That implies a low investmen fee and a relatively high energy cost of both macro abilities.
@ Dragoon
I am beginning to think the DPS nerf may be a good idea afterall after watching BW vods. When you a-moved Dragoons in BW, they would spread them selves over a large area which made their total damage output quite low. In Sbow they clump up much more efficiently which means a similar amount of Dragoons will deal more damage in Sbow.
This is ofc the case for all units, but it is not always a good thing. For instance, I think tanks benefits more from being spread out when they move forward, thus Sbow engine may acutally make tanks slightly harder to control.
@ Marine
Marine is another unit which also has higher DPS in groups than in BW. Reducing its attack speed will also have a positive sideffect as it will rape zealots less. If that change is implemented, then we have adjusted Marine relative to BW in these two ways;
1) Since it clumps more, it is more vulernable to splash --> We have buffed HP by 5, which will help a bit in those situations. In early game we have Stalkers that are good vs Marines, and we also have smarter speedlings which means its extra HP shouldn't be an issue.
2) To take into account it deals more effective damage in groups, we reduce its attack speed --> Less DPS.
Hydras on the other hand doens't need a DPS nerf as protoss now has a stronger ranged unit vs Hydralisks (the Staker). Vs bio, the Hydralisks sucks, and vs Mech terran typically has a lot of Goliaths into the mix, which also benefits from the effective clumping, thus it is evened out there.
Dragoon range
Relative to BW it takes way too long time to research and its not really practical to spend more than 1-3 chrono's on it (which only reduces research time by 7.5 seconds per CB).
IMO it makes sense to reduce it by 20 seconds (or so).
|
Btw, do we have to remove supply calldown? I like it just as a "frustration"-minimizer. Nothing more annoying than to be supply-blocked.
|
A high initial investment cost and scv calldown aren't consistent with each other as you need an army to take advantage of the economic benefits scv calldown gives you (its a design problem).
But the same can be said for a fast expansion?
You need an army to take advantage of the economic benefits a CC gives you?
(Aka something that can defend the expansion.)
Fast expansion = increases worker production and gives potential for more income. (400 minerals cost)
OC = increases worker production, army production and gives information (100-150 minerals)
Even in one-base play, a fast OC boosts the economy.
T can produce 3.33 workers per minute from his CC.
5.33 workers from his OC.
Two minutes after T has built the OC has he gained a benefit from it in pure worker production?
Plus the additional bonus from Overcharge and Scan. (If each spell costs 25 energy)
Everything that has potential to boost economy should be risky? That is the core rule with expanding or producing too many workers, while the enemy produces army instead?
Or do I miss your point?
but if you want to create an interesting decision between production boost and scv calldown, then the initial investment fee needs to be reduced.
Hence, I suggest that we use an approach where there is a true decision related to using scv calldown or production boost. That implies a low investmen fee and a relatively high energy cost of both macro abilities.
Why is it better that the OC is cheap and fast to build, but the abilities are expensive to cast?
OC who costs 125 minerals, and abilities who costs 25 energy each, will be used twice as often, compared to a OC who costs 75 minerals with abilities who cost 50 energy each. It is still the same decision, no matter if the spells cost 25, 50, 75 or 100 energy. You just do it less often. Now ofc a very high casting cost makes the decision more important, if the spell is also very important. Like Stasis field, who can have a huge impact on a battle. But macro mechanics should IMO be fast paced and quick.
Without calculating it, I would say that OC for 125 minerals with 25 energy spells will be more powerful compared to a cheaper and faster OC with more expensive spells. And that advantage will be accumulated within the first minutes. And more fun to play with. (But its ofc a matter of balance.)
Im only looking at TvZ bio opening here. Terran simply has less stuff early game than they would in BW, and zerg will have more stuff due to increased larva efficiency from the Queen. Thus, I believe terran needs an early game macromechanic that compensates them for its disadvantage.
If this is the case, and we can get more direct numbers to see how large that potential difference is, there are two approaches:
- Make OC come into play a little faster, be stronger etc.
- Make Queen come into play a little later, or be weaker etc.
All races shall be able to have the same ratio of units, compared to each other, as they had in BW at certain times in the game.
Lets say Zerg has potential to have X units at the 6 minute mark in BW.
Terran can have Y units at the 6 minute mark in BW.
With macro mechanics, Zerg can now have X+4 units at that time.
To make it "fair", Terran should also be able to have Y+4 units at that time with their own macro mechanics.
It will of course not be this even in a real game. And there is a bigger complexity since macro mechanics can be used on different things. But the point is to try make it fairly equal, especially in the early game. That is part of the reason I moved Chrono boost to become an upgrade - P could have many more Zealots early, compared to what Z could have Zerglings. Thus it affected the BW balance too much.
So if all macro mechanics have potential to come into the game at the same time (after Pool, Gateway, Barrack) as a build order choice, and the strength of the mechanics are somewhat equal, then I think it will be easier to balance.
If Zerg now has a much stronger production lead early, compared to Terran, then it is ofc problematic. But are we sure that is the case?
Btw, do we have to remove supply calldown? I like it just as a "frustration"-minimizer. Nothing more annoying than to be supply-blocked.
We don´t have to remove it. But with Calldown SCV, Scan and Overcharge, there will probably not be much energy left for Calldown Supply. (Which it could be earlier, since Calldown SCV was the only spell used frequently, which often gave T a surplus in energy.) But the option can still be there.
|
But with Calldown SCV, Scan and Overcharge, there will probably not be much energy left for Calldown Supply
Kabel, if you let the Terran OC have the 3 charge scan then you have energy left over for even the Calldown Supply and it's easier for Terran to be aggresive. 
Although the new energy cost for Scan could leave this issue mute.
|
But the same can be said for a fast expansion?
You need an army to take advantage of the economic benefits a CC gives you?
(Aka something that can defend the expansion.)
You only need a bunker with one marine to actually secure a fast expansion. With a 3rd, however you need an army.
Why is it better that the OC is cheap and fast to build, but the abilities are expensive to cast?
A high investment cost implies that you can't have 1) An army, 2) Extra scv's called down and 3) Secure a decently fast 3rd to take advantage of the extra scv's - at the same time. Thus, if investment cost is too high then we risk seeing very little SCV call down usage.
A lower investment cost/higher energy cost means it can come earlier into play, but its opportunity cost is much much higher.
OC who costs 125 minerals, and abilities who costs 25 energy each, will be used twice as often
Only if you research the upgrade. But if you research the upgrade vs zerg your army value will be lower during the pre 10 minute mark. Especially in TvZ this is very important.
But ofc if the reactorcall down is super strong, then it may still be usefull to research as a replacement for a barrack. However, then you will always opt to use production boost over scv calldown in TvZ. But maybe this is a good thing? Its possible that there is no way to make a true decision between scv calldown and reactor-calldown in that matchup.
|
You only need a bunker with one marine to actually secure a fast expansion. With a 3rd, however you need an army.
Yes. But how is this related to the Calldown SCV and the cost of Orbital command?
I mean, you advocate a cheaper and faster OC with higher energy cost for the spells. I suggest a OC that costs 125-150 minerals with BT 40 seconds, and cheaper spells. You suggest 75-100 mineral cost and with build time max 35 seconds. Is that difference really an issue when T tries to take his third base?
Or are we talking about different things?
The suggestion I have is based on some loose calculations and testing in the editor, where I have compared the strength of the macro mechanics, especially in pure worker production. If more accurate calculations are made, which takes more factors into consideration, I am ofc open for other solutions too.
A high investment cost implies that you can't have 1) An army, 2) Extra scv's called down and 3) Secure a decently fast 3rd to take advantage of the extra scv's - at the same time. Thus, if investment cost is too high then we risk seeing very little SCV call down usage.
A lower investment cost/higher energy cost means it can come earlier into play, but its opportunity cost is much much higher.
If OC costs 75 minerals and takes 30 seconds to produce, 50 energy spells = Calldown SCV is useful.
If OC costs 125-150 minerals and takes 40 seconds to produce, 25 energy spells = Calldown SCV is not as useful?
Can that relatively small different in mineral cost have such an impact?
Or how do you define a high investment cost?
Only if you research the upgrade. But if you research the upgrade vs zerg your unit count will be much less during the pre 10 minute mark. Especially in TvZ this is very important.
Then of course if the production boost is super strong, then it may still be usefull to research as a replacement for a barrack. However, then you will always opt to use production boost over scv calldown in TvZ. But maybe this is a good thing? Its possible that there is no way to make a true decision between scv calldown and reactor-calldown in that matchup.
Research additional upgrade?
OC starts with Calldown SCV, Overcharge, Scan. (In the proposal I made)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=438#8750
Kabel, if you let the Terran OC have the 3 charge scan then you have energy left over for even the Calldown Supply and it's easier for Terran to be aggresive.
Although the new energy cost for Scan could leave this issue mute.
That is a potential solution yes, if it turns out to be problematic that Scan shares energy with Terran macro mechanics.
|
I mean, you advocate a cheaper and faster OC with higher energy cost for the spells. I suggest a OC that costs 125-150 minerals with BT 40 seconds, and cheaper spells. You suggest 75-100 mineral cost and with build time max 35 seconds. Is that difference really an issue when T tries to take his third base?
There is a thin line between whether investing into economy is acutally incrases your future income or not. If one pays a too high price for being "greedy economically", then you can easily end up taking bases much later than you otherwould would be able too. This means that the "greediness" backfires as you instead up oversaturing your bases.
In the previous Sbow econ, this happened very often actually. Researching OC at 100 minerals and calling down Scv's was often times inferior to just staying on CC tech and taking a quicker 3rd. With the new econ, we can indeed increased the fixed fee, however whether that is a good or not, does depend alot on the role we want to see Scv Calldown have.
Should it be something that you only use after you have secured your 3rd (this implies high investment cost) or something that we see alot in the early game also (low investment cost, high opportunity cost)?
If opting for the latter it is ofc very easy to make CC first builds too strong, however I think that can be dealt with in two ways; 1) increase energy cost of abilites, so less energy avaiable for scv calldowns. 2) Less staring energy. The combo of these two changes should help make CC first balanced.
But something I didn't take into your account with your suggestion is that terrans may be able to invest less into production facility costs if they spend a big part the OC energy on reactor-calldown. Thus you will still be able to have a good army value even if you pay high investment fee for the Orbital upgrade --> You can still secure a 3rd at the same time as in BW even after paying a high investment fee
It is also possible that you may still be able to mix in a few scv calldowns once in a while. Thus, contrary to what I earlier believed today, it is probably possible to get the orbital upgrade before you take your 3rd base while at the same time create a decision betwen reactor-calldown and scv-calldown.
So assuming we can balance it correctly, I kinda like the suggestion now.
Research upgrade?
The upgrade = OC.
|
Don't you reach saturation levels quite quickly with calldown scv? I thought it might be awkward that calldown scv if properly used invalidates itself: the more adept you are at calling down scvs, the sooner you reach the tipping point where you are comfortable with your saturation and need to stop using the ability. It all depends on how quickly you reach this point though, since saturation levels will rise as you expand throughout the game.
If calldown scv is part of a new general production boost this problem disappears too.
|
On October 08 2013 00:10 Grumbels wrote:
Don't you reach saturation levels quite quickly with calldown scv? I thought it might be awkward that calldown scv if properly used invalidates itself: the more adapt you are at calling down scvs, the sooner you reach the tipping point where you are comfortable with your saturation and need to stop using the ability. It all depends on how quickly you reach this point though, since saturation levels will rise as you expand throughout the game.
If calldown scv is part of a new general production boost this problem disappears too.
At the moment you use it pre 10 minute mark vs protoss. Post 10 minute mark you use supply calldown a lot more.
|
All macro mechanics make saturation time much faster in Sbow compared to BW.
I will write a detailed post later on with numbers regarding this.
Right now in Sbow, Terran and Zerg can saturate bases the fastest. Protoss is behind quite a lot.
With the balance proposal I posted on the previous page, saturation time will be more even between the races. (Closer to BW)
I can have a working version of the Terran macro mechanic uploaded aroud 20.00 or 21.00 tonight. (When I get home)
|
I am beginning to think the DPS nerf may be a good idea afterall after watching BW vods
The other day, you said protoss were very weak after watching BW vods.
If u want a coreunit nerfed like this, then everyunit should be nerfed because they all have the same principle->
Everyrange unit tights up more and do more dps
Btw, do we have to remove supply calldown? I like it just as a "frustration"-minimizer. Nothing more annoying than to be supply-blocked.
I feel either all races have a supplything like this or none to make it fair.
Why should one race benefit from this, and the other dont.
You are supplyblocked and terran have stacked energy.
Protoss are supplyblocked and have stacked energy.
Now terran can just "oh, ok(uses supply calldown"
While protoss cant and gets behind
Reactor=best macromechanic
New chronoboost=reduces BT by 15sec
Reactor ability=reduces BT by 100%
|
Kabel what are your thoughts on the Stalker/Dragoon/Immortal thing?
Are you willing to test new stuff in the test map?
I thought about a new suggestion that should be easy to implement while also maintaining the current stats of the Dragoon. Further it is also consistent with BW damage system and there are no hard-counters here.
As you will see, there are some risks related to my suggestions, but I don't think there is any easy, simple or effective solution here.
Suggestions
-+ Show Spoiler +
Immortal
- Avalable at robo tech
- Immortal cost: 175/50
- Damage: 18 vs everything
- Movement speed: 15% slower than Dragoons/Stalkers.
- Range: 4
- Life: 140/100
- No AA
- 3 supply
- 45 second BT
Dragoon is unchanged
Stalker
- HP increased to 120/40 from 100/40
- DPS maintained, but damage per shot increased to 16/16/12 from 14/14/10.5 (this implies that its attack speed is reduced)
- Vulture armor type changed from medium to light
- Roach made sufficiently strong to deal with heavy Stalker play early game.
- Hydralisk now starts with range upgrade (to compensate zerg a bit since it is now worse vs Vultures and Stalkers).
- Medi can heal better when they move
Explanation
+ Show Spoiler +Dragoon has decent DPS against units that aren't light. Thus, with with this new suggestion it will now be quite bad vs Vultures as it will take 1 dragoon 8 shots to kill a Vulture.
Stalkers atm are also bad vs Vultures due to having medium armor. With the HP buff, Stalkers will now be able to survive 2 more Vulture shots, and with the extra damage they will 5-shot Vultures.
Further, Immortal is added at robo. This unit can tank a lot of Vulture shots (40) while still dealing good damage (it 5-shot it, just like a Stalker does). However, Immortal is slightly handicapped by its slow mobility and low range, so Spider Mines may actually be decent vs them. Due to the low range and relatively slow movement speed, Immortals scale quite poorly in larger armies as not all of them will shoot at once if you mass them. Further they are hard to mass due to the robo tech being expensive --> So to deal with Vultures, you will likely have a mix of Stalkers (for DPS reasons) and Immortals (to tank Vulture shots).
Vs tanks, it won't be particularly good as damage dealer. It does however take 4 shots from a tank to kill it. This is "okay'ish" but not enought enough for it to replace leglots as the main buffer unit vs tank shots.
And ofc, this unit will be pretty good vs bio play in the early midgame. It will replace the slow-zealot in protoss unit composition - as slowzealot is useless, unless terran has a very very high maurauder/marine ratio - which means that neither player now has to rely on excessive kiting to win.
We can now see actual small battles occur when terran opens bio.
The "soft counter" system
+ Show Spoiler +Vs. Vulture --> Protoss should get Immortal + Stalker Vs. Vulture + tank --> Protoss should get Immortal, Zealot, Stalker and Dragoon Vs Marines --> Protoss should get Immortal + Stalker Vs Marines + low/mid amount of Maurauders --> Protoss should get Immortal + Stalker + Dragoons Vs Marines + a lot of Maurauders --> Protoss should get Immortal, Zealot, Stalker and Dragoon Vs Hydras --> Zealot + Stalkers Vs Roach --> Immortal + Dragoon Vs Hydra + roach --> Stalker + Immortal + maybe Dragoons and Zealots Vs Hydra + roach + lurker --> Dragoon + zealot + Immortal + w/e you want to.  Admitelly, it doesn't have as clear a role vs zerg as it does vs terran. But I can still see it having utility as a buffer units vs Roache's, which deal full damage to zealots.
Risks
+ Show Spoiler +
- Will Vultures be too dominant in TvT? Is that good/bad for gameplay?
- Can Protoss survive against Vulture openings untill they get out Immortals by relying on Stalkers with medium armor - Stalkers have been buffed, but is it enough?
- Can we make the roach balanced and interesting so it can deal with the new buffed Stalkers?
- Immmortal will then likely be used to deal with roaches (along with Dragoons). However, how will that work out?
|
I feel either all races have a supplything like this or none to make it fair.
Why should one race benefit from this, and the other dont.
You only benefit from it if you make a dumb error. The punishment of dumb erros both races doesn't have to be the same for the game to be balanced. You balance the game assuming both players don't get obvious supply blocks.
Zerg actually also has less punishment for being supply blocked as you gain extra larva which you then can use instantly. Protoss and terran gets more delayed if they are supply blocked (without supply calldown). To be fair, I wouldn't mind protoss getting a similar thing, but its not really a huge deal though. Its just when we already have it, I don't see any reason remove it.
The other day, you said protoss were very weak after watching BW vods.
Yes I am saying the same thing here. Watching BW vods, Dragoon clumps up much less efficient in BW which reduces their effective damage quite a bit. Thus, assuming same stats, I would argue BW protoss is a bit weaker than Sbow protoss.
Thus it does make sense that we try to take this into account when we are adjusting stats (like we are nerfing smartcast-spells).
If u want a coreunit nerfed like this, then everyunit should be nerfed because they all have the same principle->
I suggested to only nerf units which benefit from it (like Marines also does). Hydras are already worse due to Stalkers being better and Goliaths also benefiting from it.
|
Dragoon clumps up much less efficient in BW which reduces their effective damage quite a bit
Yeah i know. Every range do this, not only dragoons
I would argue BW protoss is a bit weaker than Sbow protoss.
How?
Dragoons attackspeed is nerfed, the stalker is bad.
Hydras are already worse due to Stalkers
So? They still do more effective damage.
And we also have hydras against terran.
And hydras against all other protoss units
|
On October 08 2013 01:40 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +Dragoon clumps up much less efficient in BW which reduces their effective damage quite a bit Yeah i know. Every range do this, not only dragoons
Yes I stated that clearly in my initial post. Below is the quote from my earlier post.
This is ofc the case for all units, but it is not always a good thing.
Then I followed up with an analysis discussing how it impacted other core ranged units.
How?
Dragoons attackspeed is nerfed, the stalker is bad.
I wrote, "assuming stats were unchanged", thus if they were the same as in BW. Also I was only thinking of it vs TvP mech.
So? They still do more effective damage.
And we also have hydras against terran.
And hydras against all other protoss units
Well point was that the introduction of the Stalker is an indirect nerf to Hydralisks. Whether it creates 100% the same balance as in BW, isn't that relevant IMO. I am ok with Hydra being slightly worse in some periods of the game and slightly stronger in order periods of the game relative to BW.
Against terran it is bad vs bio and vs mech the Goliath also benfits from it, so it is kinda evened out. Goliaths aren't used that much vs protoss, except vs Carriers which indeed are worse vs terran, but I am personally fine with that as I think super-strong carriers are a a bit lame. Nevertheless, we don't need to nerf Goliath if we want to make Carriers as good as in BW, we can just buff Carrier micro instead.
|
Since it clumps more, it is more vulernable to splash --> We have buffed HP by 5
Shouldnt zerglings, hydras and maybe even more units here also get their hp buffed with this argument?
Vs bio, the Hydralisks sucks
Doesnt matter. They still do more effective damage to those units.
Its as if you say "Dragoon do more effective damage but doesnt matter because they suck vs siegetanks when they reach 15+"
We also have hydras against the mech from terran
And we have hydras against all other protoss units other than stalker
Hydra is still not bad versus stalker(?)<- dont get this argument
Vultures, siegetanks, goliaths also do more effective damage. You dont like it that siegetanks clump up? They still do more effective damage.
They wanna spread out to be even mor eeffective? Maybe. Probably, they still do more effective damage.
Dragoons take more aoe when they clump up also, everything has negativesides and positive sides.
I am ok with Hydra being slightly worse in some periods of the game and slightly stronger in order periods of the game relative to BW
If we talk about balance, then opinions like this is irrelevant.
What matters is the health of the game.
You are fine with dragoons nerfed because they do more effective damage
You are fine with hydras unchanged even if they also do more effective damage.
No justice for this
|
Shouldnt zerglings, hydras and maybe even more units here also get their hp buffed with this argument?
Maybe speedlings should have its DPS reduced and HP increased as well. I agree its the same principle for them as Marines. Alternatively we could also make them both unchanged relative to BW which definitely would be the easy solution.
Doesnt matter. They still do more effective damage to those units.
Its as if you say "Dragoon do more effective damage but doesnt matter because they suck vs siegetanks when they reach 15+"
I thikn the differnece is that you wanna get Dragoons vs mech, but you don't really wanna get Hydralisks vs bio. So if Hydralisks actually got an indirect buff vs bio, that would only add a bit more diversificaiton rather than making anything OP/UP.
Nevertheless, this actually isn't the case here, since Marines aren't nerfed per se, they just get lower group DPS and more HP instead.
Hydra is still not bad versus stalker(?)<- dont get this argument
Well the introduction of the Stalker means that protoss now has a slightly easier time dealing with hydralisk play (as Stalker is better vs Hydra's than Dragoons). Stalkers are a bit cost effecitve vs Hydralisks, Dragoons aren't.
Vultures,
Not sure Vultures are really relevant here. They run so super fast and I think they deal the same group damage in practical situations as in BW.
Vultures, siegetanks, goliaths also do more effective damage. You dont like it that siegetanks clump up? They still do more effective damage.
They wanna spread out to be even mor eeffective? Maybe. Probably, they still do more effective damage.
Dragoons take more aoe when they clump up also, everything has negativesides and positive sides.
Overall point is that Dragoons perform better when they are effectively clumped. Tanks doesn't. That's why I think a nerf is justfied. In some situations the plusses outweights the minusses - In other situations, its vice versa.
|
Hydra/Lurker is not bad at all versus bio. Why you say that?
Vultures for sure do more damage here than in broodwar since they clump up more nicely
My point overall is: Everything do more damage here, even melee units.
Just nerfing the dragoon is no justice here
|
Regarding Psionic Storm - I don't think it has BW strenght. BW was damage over 4 seconds, thus 50% more DPS.
Vultures for sure do more damage here than in broodwar since they clump up more nicely
Do they? I think this can easily tested in unit tester. If we a-move vultures in both sbow and bw i think they will do same amount of damage because all of them will easily get into firing range do their fast movement speed. If it was slower it would indeed be a different scenario.
Further I don't actually such a huge discrepancy in clumping efficiency between any other units than the Dragoon. Dragoon was obviously a big unit in BW which had a bigger impact on how it clumped up than other smaller units.
|
I upload the new macro mechanics now.
Some details:
>>>+ Show Spoiler +Orbital command costs 125 minerals and takes 40 sec to upgrade. (75 minerals, 35 sec before)
Max energy 100
Starts with 50 energy
Calldown SCV costs 25 energy, cooldown 30 sec, 50 minerals. (As before)
Scan costs 25 energy (50 before)
Overcharge costs 25 energy, makes one Barrack, Factory or Starport able to produce 2 units at the same time. The effect vanishes when one unit is finished.
Protoss
Upgraded Nexus costs 75 minerals, takes 30 seconds. (Can be Chrono boosted)
Starts with 50 energy
Max energy 100
Chrono boost costs 25 energy and increases production by 100% for 10 sec. (50% during 15 sec before)
Rift costs 50 energy to teleport 5 units.
Zerg
Queen remains exactly as it is now.
If a base uses its macro mechanic non-stop to produce workers, this is the time it takes to build 24 workers:
Z - 320 seconds
T - 321 seconds
P - 324 seconds (381 seconds with old Chrono boost!!)
Without any macro mechanic, this takes ca 422,5 seconds for P and T. (468 sec for Z due to larva spawn time)
If we want Z to still have a bit slower saturation from one base, just as they do in BW, we can reduce Inject spawn rate from 60 to 50%. (I will calculate more on it.)
If the overall saturation time is too fast in Sbow, maybe should workers gain 1 or 2 extra seconds build time. To avoid bases being saturated too fast with the help of macro mechanics.
In a real game, there is an upgrade time for P and T, which limits worker production. (This does not affect Z)
I have not measured how efficient unit production becomes, since I have not found a good way to isolate it.
But just looking at it, Overcharge is probably the strongest one. But if that energy is shared with Scan, and if the cost of Orbital is quite high, that might help to balance it out.
Further fine tuning will surely be needed for the numbers. This is a first attempt.
I think a realistic balance approach is to make all macro mechanics be available at the same time. (After Pool, Barrack, Gateway.) The worker production boost and unit production boost should be fairly even in two ways:
- immediate impact the macro mechanics have as they come into play.
- long term strength of all macro mechanics.
Everything will not be super even though. But BW is an asymmetrical game with large differences between the races.
In BW, Zerg production is a good example of uneven macro between the races, that still worked out good.
@Hiders suggestion for the test map
Yes, I can try this in a test map. I can have it up tomorrow, since I want to try the Roach again anyway. I think there are some interesting things in your suggestion.
@What to do next?
After the macro mechanics feel ok, I will look into mainly the Stalker, Dragoon, Roach and Reaper. The core units. I will not do any major changes to any BW core unit. Small modifications MIGHT happen - like the Dragoon attack speed, or Marine HP. ONLY if this intends to open up room for other unit relationships, so new stuff better fit into the game.
The Dragoon attack speed nerf by 12% is an example of that. If the Dragoon is superior vs all Terran units, as in BW, there will be no room for the Stalker. This does however not mean that the Dragoon nerf must remain. Or that it was a good thing to do. But more about this when it is time for a serious second look at those units.
Ps. I will also look into things like Dragoon range upgrade biuild time, Banshee and Viking speed, and other things that might be a bit off. But I did not touch it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
