| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
Don't wanna be smartass or anything but shouldn't macro be about expanding, getting supply depots, building enough production facilities and getting upgrades. I frankly don't see how larvainject/SCV-calldown/chronoboost would enhance the game other than pointless (robotic) clicking. I never understood those abilities other than them being "cool". + Show Spoiler + I'm new here, so feel free to ignore my post. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
On October 12 2013 07:08 Hider wrote: Well I suggested 30. That is 46% better than Nexus chrono. Maybe 35 will lead to better balance - tough to say. I was under the impression that Kabel only want 25, 50 , 75 or 100 to make the game look "clean". But yeah, if I can use any other amount then energy for SCV is less problematic. On October 12 2013 09:18 LaLuSh wrote: What are the energy costs for all those abilities (macro mechanics) xiphias? Having a hard time getting a proper oversight. So terran have both reactor and an SCV calldown? What's the energy, duration and cooldown for everything atm? There are no macro mechanincs atm. Kabel has removed them. We had: Zerg Inject larvae: 25 energy, no cooldown. Duratin 40 sec. + 60% acceleration to larvae spawn time. Queen cost 150 minerals. Protoss CB: 25 energy, no cooldown, Duration 10 sec, + 100% to acceleration to build time. Nexus upgrade thing cost 75 minerals (and 25 gas according to wikia). Terran SCV calldown: 25 energy. Cooldwon 30 sec (which is fairly redundant since it takes 44.4 sec to regenerate 25 energy). Orbital cost 100 or 75 minerals. I suggested Zerg Inject larvae: 25 energy, no cooldown. Duratin 20 sec. + 70% acceleration to larvae spawn time. Queen cost 150 minerals. Protoss CB: 25 energy, no cooldown, Duration 10 sec, + 100% to acceleration to build time. Nexus upgrade thing cost *something similar to OC* Terran SCV calldown: 0 energy. Cooldown 80 sec (or 40-45 energy, perhaps with no cooldown). Orbital cost *something similar to nexus upgrade* Before the macro was removed Terran had both reactor and SCV calldown (you could not reactor your CC). I do not have the numbers for reactor energy cost and cooldown. I only did math according to workers for this one. As Hider pointed out, taking all the other effects into account is impossible to calculate because it involves peoples choices. But they can be compared separately from the workers (Cb on buildings Vs reactor cooldwon and queen inject). Another thing to remember that I did not mention in my post. I compare larvae spawn rate to worker build time, so in other words, zerg is the only race that cannot build it's workers faster, but rather can build more at the same time. That is also an unsymmetrical comparison. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9377 Posts
Rather separate energy for macro mechanics and scan rather than share the energy and make macro mechanics OP for terran. Scan is barely used in the earlygame/ early-midgame so terran benefits a lot from having stronger macro mechanics (see early pushes), also terran and toss are on equal bases till early midgame, where toss might take a quicker third, so workers relative to basecount is not an issue here, it will only be relevant in the mid/lategame. Terran in bw delayed comsat station for quite a while if they could. I expect that Kabel will be a bit hesistant to implement this due to extra editor work though. I can see that it in some ways will make the game more clean, but personally I don't like that you will have to use seperate hotkeys for scan and macromechanics. Also, like foxxan pointed out, if you lengthen dragoon range upgrade because toss can chrono it out faster then you're forcing toss to not use chrono on econ to still have the same range timing as in bw, while terran can get siegetanks + siege mode out quicker than in bw (barracks switch) and is much more efficient at holding of this type of harrasment than in bw (marauders available etc). Terran can get perhaps 5-10 seconds faster siege tech out than in BW (BT has been increased alot for siege tech) but that comes at the expense of not building any units ouf of the barrack in the meantime. This seems like an ok tradeoff to me. But in general, I think adjustments (relative to BW) needs to be made when faster BT of a unit/research can lead to snowball effects or when something results in less build order variety. The problem with Dragoon range against terran is that it gives an absolutely guaranteed payoff due to being able to outrange bunkers. If this upgrade can come 20-30 seconds faster, then I believe sacrificing 2-3 CB's is easily worth it every single time against a fast expanding terran. This will give protoss a mathematical edge relative to BW --> Terran mines less and pays extra for repair --> worse early game relative to BW. One could ofc argue that terran could take a hit early game from the faster Dragoon range as faster OC research evened that out. However, I believe one of the reasons Kabel gave this a high investment fee was to take it a bit away from the early early game as early game CC + scv calldown was too strong previously. Tough to say whether this will work as intended though. Summing up on macromechanics Its definitely a tough nut to crack, and I don't see any easy simple clean solution here. I don't think Dragoon range should be as low as in BW. But if we maintain the current BT, then we should take it into account as a factor when determining the proper strenght of SCV Calldown. The factors to consider are these; 1) OC more expensive to research than Nexus upgrade (15s higher BT and 50 mins extra cost) 2) Terran can' benefit to the same degree from extra workers due to being less mobile 3) As the game progresses, terran can't use macromechanics as much as protoss can due to sharing energy with scan. 4) Reactor-calldown a lot harder to use efficiently as game progresses than chrono 5) Dragoon range BT increase makes protoss slightly weaker early game than in BW. 6) New one - Terran benfits from its production booster on factory more than protoss does with CB on gateways as factories are more expensive. So the ablity to cut infastructure costs when going mech is a big buff. New suggestions Trying to take into account all these five factors is obviously super challenging. But in the end, I would go with these values; - 35 energy for SCV calldown (previously I suggested 30) --> That will make it 26% more efficient than CB on Nexus. - Reactor-calldown should be 30 energy (previsouly I suggested 25). - Reactor-calldown on Barrack --> Boost by 100% - Reactor-calldown on Factory --> Boost by 50% (down from 60% from my previous suggestion as I now take into account the 6th factor which I previously ignored) - Reactor-calldown on Starport --> Boost by 50%. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
On October 12 2013 18:24 Hider wrote: - 35 energy for SCV calldown (previously I suggested 30) --> That will make it 26% more efficient than CB on Nexus. - Reactor-calldown should be 30 energy (previsouly I suggested 25). - Reactor-calldown on Barrack --> Boost by 100% - Reactor-calldown on Factory --> Boost by 50% (down from 60% from my previous suggestion as I now take into account the 6th factor which I previously ignored) - Reactor-calldown on Starport --> Boost by 50%. This could work. At least worth a try. This assumes a 100% 10 sec CB for toss and a 70 % 20 sec inject for zerg to compare with. Where does 26% comes from? With 35 energy calldown you get one extra worker per 62.22 sec (safely assuming that the cool-down is shorter than this time). You'd normally get 62.22/17.6 = 3.54 workers in 62.22 sec. Now you get 4.54 --> 62.22/4.54 = 13.7 mean worker build time. This is 4.6% shorter build-time compared to the mean for 10 sec 100% CB on probes. (which gave 14.36 mean time per worker built) | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
On October 12 2013 18:24 Hider wrote: I expect that Kabel will be a bit hesistant to implement this due to extra editor work though. I can see that it in some ways will make the game more clean, but personally I don't like that you will have to use seperate hotkeys for scan and macromechanics. Terran can get perhaps 5-10 seconds faster siege tech out than in BW (BT has been increased alot for siege tech) but that comes at the expense of not building any units ouf of the barrack in the meantime. This seems like an ok tradeoff to me. But in general, I think adjustments (relative to BW) needs to be made when faster BT of a unit/research can lead to snowball effects or when something results in less build order variety. The problem with Dragoon range against terran is that it gives an absolutely guaranteed payoff due to being able to outrange bunkers. If this upgrade can come 20-30 seconds faster, then I believe sacrificing 2-3 CB's is easily worth it every single time against a fast expanding terran. This will give protoss a mathematical edge relative to BW --> Terran mines less and pays extra for repair --> worse early game relative to BW. One could ofc argue that terran could take a hit early game from the faster Dragoon range as faster OC research evened that out. However, I believe one of the reasons Kabel gave this a high investment fee was to take it a bit away from the early early game as early game CC + scv calldown was too strong previously. Tough to say whether this will work as intended though. Making a comsat station is barely any editorwork compared to what we've seen people pull of in the editor (fe decemberscalm mutalisk micro). Needing an extra hotkey for scan is a small trade off for having an easier time to balance out scv calldown/reactor calldown vs chrono. Although i agree it might take a while to get used to. You only need to pull a couple scv's when terran went CC first, toss went gateway first and used multiple chrono's on gate/cyber. It should be only normal that toss can do something not allin that at least pressures the terran to get more even (since nexus is much later than CC). You also have more workers than the toss at this moment thanks to scv calldown OR you can use the reactor calldown to get 2 siegetanks out quick to fend of the dragoons easier. In the end you're still ahead because of the earlier CC and bigger econ. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
I guess it sort of, on a theoretical level, makes sense for chrono boost -- where it gives protoss more reason to prioritize and babysit the chrono boosting of certain structures (robo/stargate instead of wasting it on gateways). But I think that CB design will also be partially limited by the energy regeneration rate, and that's what I don't like about it. You have 2 nexus with just enough energy to chrono boost once each... you use it twice on robo to get reaver out quicker. You still have to wait 24 seconds before chrono boost is available to use again. Makes no difference between having a 20 sec duration (scaled differently) for CB and a 10 sec duration. When you get 3 nexus and above it probably starts making more of a difference intensity wise (provided players choose to only continuously chrono boost single units from single structures as opposed to just spam the CB on different structures -- in which case 44,4 seconds will again be the relevant cooldown). And I think in lategame situations, you generally have either 2 robos, 2-3 stargates or more of those relevant structures. Which sort of leads to your macro mechanics behaving and being used pretty much with exactly as much intensity as before. My first reaction to hearing about the 0 energy cost SCV calldown in conjunction with a reactor calldown is actually positive. Good way of keeping two macro mechanics relevant in one structure. If you think it's broken, just make reactor-calldown only applicable to army producing structures (not CCs). In summary: I don't think duration revamps without touching energy costs will lead to much practical difference in game. By the time you have enough queens/nexii to actually offset the energy regeneration time, you will also have much more hatcheries and robotics/stargate facilities to use that energy on, nullifying all the supposed gains in intensity again. Players will generally just not sit and babysit the chrono boosting of 1 robotics facility in a lategame where they have 2 and perhaps more robotics facilities. Or 2 or more stargates. The babysitting of chrono boosts on a single structure will only really happen in specific multiple base scenarios where players for some reason have very damaged economies and low income rates. My position on this will continue to be: just make macro mechanics a brainless and attention grabbingly spammable ability. Larva inject 20 sec duration 25 energy, 100% acceleration ----> little practical difference from 40 sec, 25 energy, 60% acc. Larva inject 20 sec duration, 12.5 energy, 60% acceleration ----> energy cost and duration don't fuck with eachother and there is a practical difference in intensity, while little or no difference in balanced strength. CB 10 sec duration, 25 energy, 100% acceleration. The design problem for what Starbow is trying to achieve here is that the chrono boost needs to be strong enough (high enough acceleration), that it's worth to actually use it on mostly the continous boosting of a single unit on a single structure. So scaling the acceleration down has the risk of making the chrono boost feel unimportant. The problem with keeping the current strength relationship between acceleration and duration, though, is that energy regeneration will fuck with the intensity of use. 10 sec duration is already a short duration, so it would be questionable on this particular macro mechanic to do just a straight downscale (5 sec duration, 12.5 energy, 100% acceleration). What I want to say here essentially is: a too big difference between duration of an ability and the energy cost/regeneration I don't think will lead to much practical difference in how players use the macro mechanics. Even in the lategame, they will tend to burn energy cost on multiple production buildings, and then be limited by energy regeneration rate again. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
If a relevant ability could be added to every race's macro mechanic structure/unit that cost 0 energy and just had a cooldown (and that ability would be used in conjunction with a macro mechanic that cost energy but had no cooldown), it would be succesful in increasing intensity while not having to mess with the design of the current macro mechanics. An example for Queen (maybe stupid one): Starbow larva inject works normally like it does now (don't matter what energy cost, duration etc). Starbow queen has a second larva inject ability that it gains access to at, let's say, lair tech. It works like SC2 inject larva. Pops out 1 larva after x second duration. Cooldown: 50-80 sec. Energy cost: 0. Probably a stupid example design wise. I just liked the idea of a 0 energy cooldown based macro mechanic in combination with an energy based, no cooldown, macro mechanic. Very little would stop these 2 abilities from in practice being used with the same intensity as only an energy based macro mechanic though (meaning most players would generally use both at the same time). | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
1. I was under the impression that Kabel only wanted 25*n values (n is a whole number). 2. I like it when you "feel" that the macro mechanic matters even if it matters less. It also leads to more exciting game-play imo. "I need to squeeze out just one more dragoon before the push is coming to my nat" or "I need some more larvae RIGHT NOW!" If you have long duration but little effect it feels like it does nothing, but if you have short duration with more effect then it feels more important and you see the result of it right away. That also matches SCV call-down more which happens instantly. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9377 Posts
You only need to pull a couple scv's when terran went CC first, toss went gateway first and used multiple chrono's on gate/cyber. It should be only normal that toss can do something not allin that at least pressures the terran to get more even (since nexus is much later than CC). You also have more workers than the toss at this moment thanks to scv calldown OR you can use the reactor calldown to get 2 siegetanks out quick to fend of the dragoons easier. In the end you're still ahead because of the earlier CC and bigger econ. I am thinking relative to BW. I want to create a situation where terran FE is equally as strong as in BW. I believe that if Dragoon range upgrades too quickly, then terran FE will be worse than in BW, as the extra cost of repairing + less timing time > larger than the cost of using 2-3 CB's on Nexus (which is the trade off here). But ofc it depends on the exact value that OC adds into the mix. I believe that OC is less of a factor early game (due to the high investment fee you will likely delay it a bit - ofc you can get it earlier, but the intention is that it shouldn't be optimal), thus it isn't strong enough to compensate for the faster Dragoon range. But if instead we have this 166second BT of Dragoon range, then protooss has multiple options against a fast expanding terran; 1) Chrono out range. If you use 2 chrono you can have it in same time as in BW. 3 CB's --> 10 seconds earlier. 2) Skip chrono on range upgrade and use it non Nexus to equalize econ 3) Chrono out tech like Reaver + warp prism or Sentinels. If BT is 146 seconds on range, then the former choice gives you a guaranteed 40-50 seconds or so where you can shoot at bunker -->Dominant choice relative to the two other options --> Less build order variety. | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
So what do you win extra compared to bw with devoting yourself to 3 chrono's on cybercore and (delaying your expansion!): 25 minerals worth of damage and 3 scv's not mining over a timespan of 10 seconds => negligible compared to its cost. I think you overestimate the damage it causes. Macromechanics are buffs compared to bw, their intended purpose is not to nerf all researchtimes so you'd have one of them slightly faster (compared to bw) given that you'd devote most of your energy to one research. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
But if instead we have this 166second BT of Dragoon range, then protooss has multiple options against a fast expanding terran; So if protoss do not use CB on cyber, he will be behind compared to bw, why is this good? Now when terran goes 1rax expand or cc first->he gets faster siegetanks 34 seconds (took into account the liftingpart) 34 seconds is almost 3,5 CB. Dragoons are 2.0 attackspeed, already nerfed from broodwar. Protoss uses macrhomechanic to speed his stuff up, this is whats supposed to happen. When protoss uses CB on his cyber, he could have instead used it on more probes. Or more units. Terran also have macromechanic, and he have 2cc this time. His bunker will not die. Even with 100% bw values (siegetanks comes normal time etc). IF protoss uses CB on cyber he will be behind most likely. And what stops terran from timing their macromechanic so he makes two tanks faster. Macromechanics already change stuff from broodwar. And if u wanna nerf dragoonrange, shouldnt everything be nerfed than from protoss? lets say, reaver and warpprism<- cuz they can do huge impact. The charm goes away with stuff nerfed just because of CB. Either remove CB or let all BT stay. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
On October 12 2013 19:28 Xiphias wrote: This could work. At least worth a try. This assumes a 100% 10 sec CB for toss and a 70 % 20 sec inject for zerg to compare with. Where does 26% comes from? With 35 energy calldown you get one extra worker per 62.22 sec (safely assuming that the cool-down is shorter than this time). You'd normally get 62.22/17.6 = 3.54 workers in 62.22 sec. Now you get 4.54 --> 62.22/4.54 = 13.7 mean worker build time. This is 4.6% shorter build-time compared to the mean for 10 sec 100% CB on probes. (which gave 14.36 mean time per worker built) I redid some thinking and did CB vs 35 energy calldown in terms of number of workers per minute (or whatever time) but it is still far away from 26% more effective. Calldown becomes 4.8% (roughly) more effective with 35 energy and no change to CB. | ||
|
saddaromma
1129 Posts
| ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On October 15 2013 01:17 saddaromma wrote: bumbing in to say you guys are doing an awesome job. Just lost a game to a guy who was clearly better than me but the game was lots of fun nonetheless. It was his first StarBow game and he likes it a lot. His nick [CSI] Toastie, master level. Glad to hear it! The map pool is currently being revitalized for better play, but that shouldn't take long. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9377 Posts
On October 13 2013 04:06 Xiphias wrote: I redid some thinking and did CB vs 35 energy calldown in terms of number of workers per minute (or whatever time) but it is still far away from 26% more effective. Calldown becomes 4.8% (roughly) more effective with 35 energy and no change to CB. The differences in our results arises because you calculate the effect of macromechanics in this way; (Scv production of CC + efficiency of Scv calldown)/(Probe production of Nexus + efficency of CB) = 1.046 While I calculate it n this way; Efficiency of scv calldown/Efficiency of CB on nexus = 1.26 Both methods are correct, but the values are just higher with my method as I look at the valuecreation of macromechanics isolated. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9377 Posts
On October 15 2013 06:13 decemberscalm wrote: How are you defining efficiency Hider? Each Scv calldown adds 17.6 seconds extra to production. Efficiency = 17.6/energy cost. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
 )It is a bit interesting though. It is 26% more effective as a macro mechanic but it only adds 4,8% more mining efficiency overall. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
Online Event
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
