|
On December 06 2013 02:09 Xiphias wrote:
I'm fine with colossus out-raging missile turrets and spore crawlers, but then they will automatically also out-range all other static defense (except tanks) which I think will be too strong for such a mobile unit.
This seems to be a problematic, and hard to solve.
I don't know what you mean? I suggest to remove the AA vulnerability from them - in terms of static defense that only affects spores and Turrets.
@ Reaver
So i've been thinking of this unit for a while, and I think I come up with a decent solution. The problem with it now is that it is the anti-thesis of "fair fights" as it absolutely owns biological units (along with a speed prism) unless they have some kind of anti-counter to it, such as Abduct or Ghosts. Without those units, the Reaver can kill an inifitive amount of biological units. That is similar to some of the hardcounter situations we often see in Sc2.
The problem here vs bio is that it forces the terran player to add ghosts which slows down his mobility quite a lot and makes attacking a lot more difficult. When attacking becomes more dififucult than defending --> Turtle games with deathball armies dancing around each other. We often see that in TvP Hots when terran attempts to Ghosts to his composition.
So IMO I prefer we modify its stats somewhat. First of all, as I want to nerf it in one way, it should IMO get a compensation buff in another way - that buff should IMO be "free scarabs".
I also suggest that we keep its single-target damage values from BW as well as the same splash vs light units for 3 reasons;
1) According to Dirty, its single-target damage is important in many harass situations - I prefer that this unit remains a strong harass unit.
2) High splash damage vs light units is also important when killing scv's.
3) High splash damage vs light also seperates it somewhat from the Collosus which has relatively weak damage vs light.
So how do I suggest we nerf the Reaver? Well, I suggest that armored units doesn't take splash damage from it. While its not an intuitive solution, it is IMO a quite effective solution in obtaining the desired gameplay. We can now have Roache's and Maurauders as a "real" softcounter to the Reaver.
This also adds more gameplay options - rather than just going Reavers every time vs bio or every time vs Roach/Hydra, the protoss player will now have to either mix in Collosus or simply skip Reavers entirely if the opponent is light on Marines or Hydralisks.
So I believe this will create a much more fair fight between a biological unit composition and a Reaver in a Warp prism.
|
Seriously guys, this is a stupid feature. The Colossus has too many silly gimmicks, and if we fix those, it won't be a Colossus anymore - make another unit that can fill the same role, but better.
Its name doens't have to be Collosus - that's really irrelevant. This unit is just supposed to be a somewhat mobile and microable tier 2 unit which should make the protoss army more cost efficient vs armored units mainly while still being decent vs light and medium units. Its DPS should IMO be relative high while being vulnerable to target firing.
Alternatively to the AA removal, we could make the "hardened shield" upgrade of the Collosus also reduce damage taken from static defense to 0. That's however a somewhat inconsistent and illogical solution.
@ Vulture
Spider Mine AI priority should obv be fixed. But regarding the acceleration-thing, I am a bit more sceptical about reducing that. I remember the old old Vulture (before we attempted the BW solution), was kinda boring to use - while it worked, it didn't really feel like it had a lot of potential. The current Vulture, however, is absolutely awesome to control. While I agree it creates an imbalance relative to BW, I wanna wait a bit, but before we change anything to see exactly how big the imbalance is and whether for (for instance) the introduction of the Sentinel, Stalker (with my suggestion) and the Collosus can make up for that in some way.
Alternatively, instead of reducing the acceleration, I actually wonder whether we can recreate the situation in BW where the Vulture moved closer to the target after attacking by simply reducing the range of the Vulture a bit. Would a range reduction from 5 to 4.5 work here?
|
Oh. I thought you wanted a longer range on the colossus so it could out-range the turrets/spores.
Sorry about misunderstanding. Yeah, removing the AA volubility and letting it have shorter range /shorter than SC2 that is) sounds like a better idea.
|
Thoughts on macromechanics affect on the amount of action in the game
Previously there has been some discussion of whether the ecoboosters for instance leads to less action or not as players focus's on building up an econ instead of investing into offensive units.
However, I actually think the reverse is the case: Ecoboosters and macromechanics will in general lead to more action.
To see why, let's put up a scenario where one race is immobile and another race is immobile. Let's also define two types of actions; 1) Harass-based and 2) Real fights.
The latter will only occur when the immobile race wants it too as the mobile race can't attack into a defended immobile race on two or three bases. The immobile race therefore needs to "move out" before real battles can occur.
However, untill that occurs, both races can choose to harass the other race. Macromechanics doesn't matter a lot here. Even if you invest alot into the eco, you can still afford a dropship with vultures or a warp prism with Dt's/Reavers in the early midgame.
Instead, I believe one way to make harass in the early midgame more powerfull is simply to reduce the infastructure costs of Starport and Robo. Something that is also benefical for the Collosus.
So while macromechanics doesn't matter a whole lot for the amount of harass in the game, I believe it allows real fights to occur faster than in BW. For instance, let's say in BW the terran wouldn't move out in PvT before he was at 160 supply on 3 bases. in BW that may happen at the 16th minute mark (random number). With macroemchanics, however, it may happen 1-2 minutes earlier (14-15th minute mark). This means that we get too see real battles faster than in BW.
|
While we are at it, I might as well list the full amount of suggestions I like to see in the coming patches (short summary from my most recent posts).
Terran
- Factory BT increased by 10 seconds
- OC 10 seconds longer research time than Nexus (not sure whether Nexus should faster or OC slower to research).
- Vulture range reduced to 4.5
- Spider Mine AI fixed
- Stim attack speed boost nerfed from 50% to 40%.
- Starport cost reduced to 100/100 from 150/100
- Upgrade available at ebay at a cost of 100/50 which puts scan in a seperate energy pool from the OC.
Protoss
- Collosus doesn't take damage from AA
- Collosus can walk over friendly units.
- Collosus is more reactionable/agile
- Robo cost reduced to 150/150 from 200/200
- Slow-Zealot movement speed increased by 0.25
- Build time of Twilight Council reduced by 10 seconds
- Research time of Charge reduced by 30 seconds.
- Stalkers can now research "benign"-ability.
- Reaver single target damage reverted to BW stats
- Scarabs are now free
- Scarabs deal no splash (only single target damage) to armored units.
Zerg
- Hydra movement speed upgrade time increased by 30 seconds
- Ultralisk model size reduced (Kabel check a couple of BW games - it simply seems to be a lot smaller in BW than in Sc2)
|
Long post where I try to answear some of your comments.
@Marines
>>>+ Show Spoiler +IMO Marines needs its high agility for two reasons; 1) It is more microable, 2) People are used to it from Sc2 - and it will be a step back if we revert (similar to implementing no MBS/removing smartcast etc.).
However, when you buff a unit/race in one way, then there needs to a nerf in another way. I've been thinking of this for a while, and I believe that it would be appropriate to reduce speed the attack speed boost of stim from 50% boost to 40%. This means that Marine become less cost efficient in battles, which makes it less of a neccesity to tech up to super fast AOE. Right now Marines simple rapes everything that isn't AOE-based, which isn't particularly good design in my opinion. So this change will simply make the Marines more "fair". I agree that Marines are problematic in the sense that they can almost slaughter anything themselfes. Combats vs Marines often become a bit lame and ends in seconds. In BW, Stimpack even gives 100% attack speed boost. I only made it 50% in Sbow, but its maybe still too high. But at the same time, I try to stick to as much basic BW balance as possible, for the sake of making our lifes easier. Two potential solutions: 1.) As you suggest, reduce attack speed boost from 50% to 40, 30 or something else. 2.) Add overkill to Marines. (Just as if they have projectiles.) Many of them packed together deal less efficient dmg
@SCV Calldon + Terran opening
>>>+ Show Spoiler +- Factory BT increased by 10 seconds --- This makes up for tech lab switching.
- OC takes 10 seconds longer to research than Nexus --- This makes up for the instant scv calldown (note that the 25 mineral extra cost doesn't account for that. Instead, the higher cost accounts for the ability to unlock scan).
Scv calldown
Any comment on this one?
If I understood your numbers Foxxan, the problem is that SCV Calldown gains a faster immediate impact on the economy, compared to Protoss. But in the long run, worker production between P and T is evened out. If that is the case, 10 sec longer BT on OC can help with that, Perhaps slightly higher cost aswell? (150 minerals?) I am always afraid of touching core values, like the Factory build time, since it can impact early balance too much. But maybe it is necessary due to tech lab switches being a part of Sbow. (Which impacts the balance even more!) Any unintended consequenses with either of these changes in any match-up?
@Scan
>>>+ Show Spoiler +- Terran gets an e-bay upgrade, which (when upgraded) puts scan in a seperate energy pool from the macromechanics --- This means you don't have to worry in the mid/late game about overusing macromechanics in fear of not having enough scans. IMO this is quite an interesting solution, that doesn't outright copy either Sc2 or BW, but gives Sbow a differentiated solution.
And about scan, dont wanna change it to seperate?
I think an E-bay upgrade sounds like an interesting and easy idea. (I think its possible to make in the editor.) Here is how it could work: - Scan requires energy to cast at the Orbital command, as normal. - When the upgrade is researched, Scan costs no energy but instead uses "charges". - One Scan costs one charge to use, - Up to maybe 3 Scan-charges can be stored in the OC. - Each Scan-charge takes 60 (?) seconds to regenerate? It will kinda be like Spider mines. A Vulture can store 3 of them. Then they are depleted. The difference is that Scan will regenerate a new Scan-charge every X seconds. (Unlike Spider mines.)
@Hydras vs Zealots movement speed
+ Show Spoiler +
I still think the solution here lies in fixing the slowzealot vs Hydra movement speed assymmetry - this should make 1gate expo more viable (as protoss doesn't need multiple cannons to survive vs Hydra timing attack), and it will allow toss to take faster 3rd.
One solution can be this;
1) Increase Hydra speed research time by 30 seconds
2) Reduce legspeed research time by 30 seconds
3) Possibly also buff slowzealots movement speed by 0.3 (this will also make them better vs early bio pushes)
Another solution:
1) Buff both slowzealot and slowhydra movement speed.
2) Make Hydra speed upgrade tier 2
I wonder Kabel, what are your thoughts on this subject?
Its BW balance changes, so I am always skeptical/careful about them. The way BW is balanced does NOT mean its the best-and-most-super-awesome-way-of-providing-awesome-gameplay-ever. BUT if we move away from BW, we need to be 100% certain its for the better, both for gameplay, fun, and balance. One thing that saddens me is the Dragoon. (And how I failed to implement the Immortal/Stalker a while ago.) It is the only unit Protoss needs to "mass" early/mid game vs T and P, since it can take care of all enemy potential threats. I like when many units are required, and I would love if at least Zealots became more useful to mix into the army even early in the game. I believe in this formula: The more different kinds of units needed = more micro = more fun combats. (But ofc other factors contribute to fun micro too.) I can not say if your suggestion will work or not. BUT I do fear it would impact the balance a lot, since the assymetric speed upgrades for Zealots + Hydras are important. Is there no smaller solution to make Zealots become more useful early in PvP and PvT? (Just make slow Zealots + slow Hydras little faster, maybe 2.35 speed, which keeps their relationship, PLUS it makes Zealots better to mix in vs early bio pressure.)
@Reaver
+ Show Spoiler +Quote: + Show Spoiler +@ Reaver
So i've been thinking of this unit for a while, and I think I come up with a decent solution. The problem with it now is that it is the anti-thesis of "fair fights" as it absolutely owns biological units (along with a speed prism) unless they have some kind of anti-counter to it, such as Abduct or Ghosts. Without those units, the Reaver can kill an inifitive amount of biological units. That is similar to some of the hardcounter situations we often see in Sc2.
The problem here vs bio is that it forces the terran player to add ghosts which slows down his mobility quite a lot and makes attacking a lot more difficult. When attacking becomes more dififucult than defending --> Turtle games with deathball armies dancing around each other. We often see that in TvP Hots when terran attempts to Ghosts to his composition.
So IMO I prefer we modify its stats somewhat. First of all, as I want to nerf it in one way, it should IMO get a compensation buff in another way - that buff should IMO be "free scarabs".
I also suggest that we keep its single-target damage values from BW as well as the same splash vs light units for 3 reasons;
1) According to Dirty, its single-target damage is important in many harass situations - I prefer that this unit remains a strong harass unit.
2) High splash damage vs light units is also important when killing scv's.
3) High splash damage vs light also seperates it somewhat from the Collosus which has relatively weak damage vs light.
So how do I suggest we nerf the Reaver? Well, I suggest that armored units doesn't take splash damage from it. While its not an intuitive solution, it is IMO a quite effective solution in obtaining the desired gameplay. We can now have Roache's and Maurauders as a "real" softcounter to the Reaver.
This also adds more gameplay options - rather than just going Reavers every time vs bio or every time vs Roach/Hydra, the protoss player will now have to either mix in Collosus or simply skip Reavers entirely if the opponent is light on Marines or Hydralisks.
So I believe this will create a much more fair fight between a biological unit composition and a Reaver in a Warp prism. Reavers are one of the units in BW who shut down Bio play. Make splash damage completely ignore armored units might feel a bit strange. Another approach is to keep high single target damage, and just reduce the damage dealt by the splash. 100% vs light 50% vs medium 25% vs armored Remember, still 100 damage vs the target no matter what armor type. Only splash damage is reduced. Maybe should shields still take full damage? Or it can be reduced too.. Hmm... The splash damage reduction would also fit with the BW damage system. (Concussive damage.) An info-button can be added to the Reaver that explain this, so its easy to understand for newcomers. (Just like all units with different attacks have info-buttons.) This would indeed make Reavers less of a hard counter vs everything on the ground, and not shut down Bio play in an as brutal way as in BW. Rather its more important to focus fire with the Reaver, taget specific kinds of units. It can also open up the need for another Robotic unit - which atm is the Colossus.
@Colossus
+ Show Spoiler +If anyone has a fairly detailed suggestion on how to make this unit fun, fit into the game, good for the gameplay, balanced, and just better than the SC2 Colossuion, please share your thoughts. I do think the Sbow Colossus atm is better than the SC2 version, and I hope we can make something fun out of this unit. It still needs more work IMO. I quote myself: I would prefer one more Robotic unit in the game, especially a mid-game unit. But we kinda lack models - its either some kind of Sentry, the Colossus or the Immortal. (They are units who can quite naturally fit into the structure.)
And the reason is ofc that Protoss is very much like BW Protoss.
I would prefer if each race has something new to explore and play around with. Both Zerg and Terran have new toys that I think fit into the game well: Marauder, Reaper, Banshee, Viking, Baneling, Roach, Queen, Viper, plus some minor things.
Protoss has the Sentinel + Warp in, but thats kinda it. Almost everything else is BW.
Ofc a new potential Robo unit needs to have a place in the game, fit well, make the gameplay better and just feel useful.
@Stalker
+ Show Spoiler +
Ideas are welcome here too. I do think the current version of the Stalker is kinda ok, except for Blink. But it can surely become better and more useful.
Jay wrote a fun idea to me: Maybe add some kind of passive ability to the Stalker. When it moves around, it is cloaked/benign/etherel or something else. When it attacks, Blinks or does something else, it becomes visible or more vulnerable.
Hmm..
@Having decimals as a range value
+ Show Spoiler +
All units in both BW and SC2 use a full number as range.
Marines range 4, Siege Tanks range 12, Dragoons range 6 etc.
I think we should stick with this and not add range values with 5.5 or anything like that for attacks.
Spells and hidden abilities can use decimals since those values does not appear in the game for players anyways.
(Not that it matters that much, but I would prefer to be consistent.)
I will be working for three full days/evenings in a row now, so I can´t release a new patch until sunday or monday though,
I will focus on fixing crucial things, like Spider mine AI, get Stalker + Colossus feel good, fix some macro mechanics values etc.
|
In BW, Stimpack even gives 100% attack speed boost. I only made it 50% in Sbow, but its maybe still too high.
Wow, didn't know it was already nerfed. Maybe the solution here isn't to nerf stim, but to nerf its normal attack speed?
I am always afraid of touching core values, like the Factory build time, since it can impact early balance too much. But maybe it is necessary due to tech lab switches being a part of Sbow. (Which impacts the balance even more!)
I don't think it impacts core balance in any bad way relative to BW. It only gets us closer to the time it takes to get factory w/ tech lab in BW.
Its BW balance changes, so I am always skeptical/careful about them. The way BW is balanced does NOT mean its the best-and-most-super-awesome-way-of-providing-awesome-gameplay-ever. BUT if we move away from BW, we need to be 100% certain its for the better, both for gameplay, fun, and balance.
One thing that saddens me is the Dragoon. (And how I failed to implement the Immortal/Stalker a while ago.)
It is the only unit Protoss needs to "mass" early/mid game vs T and P, since it can take care of all enemy potential threats. I like when many units are required, and I would love if at least Zealots became more useful to mix into the army even early in the game.
I believe in this formula: The more different kinds of units needed = more micro = more fun combats.
(But ofc other factors contribute to fun micro too.)
I can not say if your suggestion will work or not. BUT I do fear it would impact the balance a lot, since the assymetric speed upgrades for Zealots + Hydras are important.
Is there no smaller solution to make Zealots become more useful early in PvP and PvT?
(Just make slow Zealots + slow Hydras little faster, maybe 2.35 speed, which keeps their relationship, PLUS it makes Zealots better to mix in vs early bio pressure.)
The point here is that we already removed away from BW balance by nerfing Reaver, HT and Cannons. That's a big nerf to protoss cost efficiency - my countersolution is to buff its early game. This will IMO be for the better as protoss early game vs zerg is so limited to forge fast expand which creates a very stale early game. I like 1gate expand a lot more as it allows for earlier zealot pressure.
IMO the assymetrical research time speed upgrade of Hydra relative to Zealot is a giant design flaw of BW as it basically means that one race can't be in the offensive in the early game (with two-gate as the execption). I think Dirty suggested to make twilight come faster, and I think this is a good solution with the least amount of unintended consequences (Hydra speed at tier 2 will likely have more consequences).
If protoss leglot timing attacks becomes too strong, we could consider (as a back-up solution) to make Roaches tier 1.5
Jay wrote a fun idea to me: Maybe add some kind of passive ability to the Stalker. When it moves around, it is cloaked/benign/etherel or something else. When it attacks, Blinks or does something else, it becomes visible or more vulnerable.
Could work as well (similar effect as my suggestion) - it will definitely strenghten the role of the Stalker as a "walk alone unit". This is, however a big buff for the Stalker as it means it (almost) always gets off the first shots off. If this is implemented, we may need a second look at its stats (in case it might be OP).
All units in both BW and SC2 use a full number as range.
Pretty sure Reaper is 4.5 (maybe that was changed in HOTS though). However, IMO that doesn't really matter since not a lot of people actually check the stats of the units.
E.g. I didn't even though the BW range of Vulture was 5 as it feels much lower due to the "moving close after attacking thing". When that is said, its possible that 4 range is a better value for the Vulture - so if you wanna go with that value I won't hold you back. 
|
I like the idea of adding overkill for marines. While it may not be "enough" by itself, it is subtle and in many ways elegant. Players can squeeze a little more out of marines if they are skilled enough to target fire and whatnot.
Actually, I would prefer overkill for everything 
|
I like the idea of adding overkill for marines. While it may not be "enough" by itself, it is subtle and in many ways elegant.
So this will create the same effect as reducing attack speed. However, when reducing the attack speed we can eaisly quantify the effect. With overkill, we don't really know how much it nerfs them which IMO makes it an inferior solution.
Map-suggestion
A lot of BW pro's seem to play Circuit Breaker now and I believe that map looks pretty awesome. Is it possible to get it into Starbow?
|
On December 06 2013 03:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I like the idea of adding overkill for marines. While it may not be "enough" by itself, it is subtle and in many ways elegant. So this will create the same effect as reducing attack speed. However, when reducing the attack speed we can eaisly quantify the effect. With overkill, we don't really know how much it nerfs them which IMO makes it an inferior solution.
That may be true, but I don't believe everything needs to be necessarily quantified like that. In a game like Starcraft where both math and mechanics mix, a global change like nerfing attack speed affects everyone, rather than scaling the skill needed to get the most out of a unit. Furthermore, I just added an addendum to my post, but it is more elegant than just reducing attack speed. Instead of an outright nerf to marines, players can still use marines better by target firing. Making marines have overkill allows more avenues for players to show their skill. If there still needs to be a reduction in attack speed, it can be done on top of that.
|
On December 06 2013 03:57 purakushi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2013 03:54 Hider wrote:I like the idea of adding overkill for marines. While it may not be "enough" by itself, it is subtle and in many ways elegant. So this will create the same effect as reducing attack speed. However, when reducing the attack speed we can eaisly quantify the effect. With overkill, we don't really know how much it nerfs them which IMO makes it an inferior solution. That may be true, but I don't believe everything needs to be necessarily quantified like that. Furthermore, I just added an addendum to my post, but it is more elegant than just reducing attack speed. Instead of an outright nerf to marines, players can still use marines better by target firing. Making marines have overkill allows more avenues for players to show their skill. If there still needs to be a reduction in attack speed, it can be done on top of that.
That's won't have any type of practical effect on micro. Noone actually takes for instance a big group of 40 marines to target fire a unit. You always choose just a small group of units to target fire, so whether or not overkill is there isn't really a practical concern.
In terms of micro, overkill really only matters for unit that doesn't need to move to shift targets such as Siege Tanks.
|
Another approach is to keep high single target damage, and just reduce the damage dealt by the splash.
100% vs light
50% vs medium
25% vs armored
Remember, still 100 damage vs the target no matter what armor type. Only splash damage is reduced.
Maybe should shields still take full damage? Or it can be reduced too.. Hmm...
Probably a more intuitive solution yes.
I think single-target damage vs armored has to be the same - Otherwise it will simply be too bad at harassing vs mech for instance. With 100 damage vs armored, you can run forward with your Maurauders against Reavers with losing any units to the first Scarab-shots. That should make it alot easier to attack/move out on the map with bio.
Its, however, a decent sized nerf, so what are your thoughts on making scarabs free as a compensation?
|
On December 06 2013 03:54 Hider wrote:
Map-suggestion
A lot of BW pro's seem to play Circuit Breaker now and I believe that map looks pretty awesome. Is it possible to get it into Starbow?
I'm on it 
|
SV suggestion
So for the Thor I suggested some type of pull-back targetted tanks ability to make it synergize well with Tanks. However, thor gets removed so that's gonna work out.
But I think both Dirty and I agree'd on the fact that the ability to individual micro your tanks is a very fun thing to do, and thus I don't wanna give up on the idea.
So I wonder, what if the SV gets the ability as a replcament for Nerve Jammer. NJ isn't really a particular fun ability atm. and most of the time the SV just hangs over the tank-line in PvT for detection purposes and in case an Arbiter show off. IMO it would be so much fun if you could actually micro your Tanks while using the SV. So I think it would be awesome if at a cost of 25 energy, the SV could pull any unit to the position of the SV. The maximum range could be 9 or so.
Relative to the BW matrix solution, I feel like this one has a lot more room for creative usage. For instance, it may also be possible to use it to avoid terran limiations.
Thoughts?
|
If I understood your numbers Foxxan, the problem is that SCV Calldown gains a faster immediate impact on the economy, compared to Protoss. But in the long run, worker production between P and T is evened out.
Yes.
The worker 3, they get almost at the same time.
The first worker is huge, and the second is semi-huge to
It will not, make up for it by highing the cost and buildtime on the OC(unless you increase it by an unreasonable number)
I dont have any suggestion here, i found the scv calldown hard to make right cuz its cooldown based and instant
Factory 10sec extra BT
+ Show Spoiler +
It will reduce the effectiveness of 1base pressure,
maybe 2base pressure to
which i dont like!
10sec bt+LIFT off time 8sec=18sec. The siegetank will arrive 18seconds earlier on every factory techlab trick.
The buff is still big for terran. And all in all, 10sec increase doesnt make up for it if terran goes fast expansion!
I suggest this here instead:
Decrease the buildtime of the techlab and price-> 50% buff->
- Techlab: 25/25, 20BT
-This way, terran bioplay against zerg in particular doesnt get nerfed
-overall, buff to protoss
Remember, in broodwar there were no techlab on barack. So terran didnt have to waste any gas to unlock medics and also not waste any buildtime on the baracks, and could instead make more marines(which is good for gameplay)
So they both had more units, and easier time to do their tech.
While doing this, make all upgrades in the techlab bw value. Maybe increase the buildtime on siegeupgrade though, i feel it should not have bw-value with this change. Like 15sec extra or 20.(Almost like it is now)
To compensate, reduce price of cyber to 150 from 200. (Maybe also reduce bt slightly on cyber to unlock faster dragoons)
Reduce price of dragoon range to 100/100 from 150/150,
Reduce price of robotic to 150/150 from 200/200
This will change the meta to, which we all want?
Zerg compensating, they dont need very much here actually since mech is not very good against good zergs, and goons and roboplay is not super-effective either against them
BW value on hydra range is 150/150, here its 100/100. So its already a buff to zerg.
Besides, zerg already cheaper overlord speed its 150/150 in bw.
Also, they can upgrade every lair upgrade on any hatchery(which they couldnt in bw) so overlord drop+speed arrives faster. If it get troublesome, reduce price of hydraden by 50minerals.
I think small things here could compensate if it get troublesome.
Macro mechanics
Any chance, zerg could get a better macro boost here? Maybe some larva from their queen or something?
Reason is-> A buff overall for all races could shake the meta and action up for the game.
Is this bad?
CB better,
terrans better,
and queen can make some larva.
While at the same time, try to balance scv calldown while changing things here?
At the same time, you want more decisions. I feel reduce in bt on the ecoboosters would be fine here but reduce starting energy quite drastic. Its not fun losing 2whole workers while upgrading on 1base.
If u have 2base, its fine actually since you have double effect there(?)
To encourage more 1base agression, this would maybe be good?
Scan
The upgrade on ebay is good. THOUGH its important its get a gas cost like 100/100 in price, maybe semi-low buildtime of like 40seconds-60
Remember ,in bw every scan costed 50/50 and 36seconds in buildtime(on every command center),
i feel terran needs something to slow them down here against toss and zerg.
Changing Bw-core
+ Show Spoiler +
If we are gonna try to change more bw core here which potentially is more troublesome than the changes to the techlab etc, then try this month and shake things up a bit?
Encourage new strategies, new meta. More action. More self-thinking than go with bw?
PROTOSS
I like the idea of unlocking speed on zealot faster for protoss.
Would like to see a faster tech overall to both citadel and archieves:
- Faster templars(darktemplars, and hightemplars)
- Faster leglot
- Faster archon
Iam thinking something along the lines of:
- Cheaper citadel by 50minerals, and 10sec BT buff->
and 50/50 buff in price on legspeed, and 10sec BT buff
- 10sec BT buff to archieves, and 150/150 cost of storm
I would actually like a cheaper achieves but i dont suggest it for now
These are all core to protoss against zerg. Reason for faster archon is so they have something worthy of a core unit against a bunch of mutas. (I dont count dragoons, and stalker here as core since they overall suck as dps to zerg for their cost).
Easier access to storm might lead to some more positioning of the templars, and lead to more strategy in pvz
To be fair:
-The archon still lose to mutas(if the player learns how to split, i think the technique is a bit different than in sc2 and bw)
- The mutas, can still dodge the archons, and pick off probes(Can we assume a good zerg here please?)
It would be quite huge here obviously to get faster leglot, but it would be cool.
However, this would perhaps lead to more agression openers and holy crist, maybe toss can skip the stargate completely?
Something nice to aid the archons in defence is the stalkers here against mutas, kinda nice actually.
Remember now, that storm is already nerfed. Cannons is nerfed, this is actually very huge but maybe it can stay that way with these changes, although the huge problems lies in lategame if the reaver gets nerfed and cannons to(if we assume bw lings)
Although i wouldnt be to upset of it, maybe just maybe a buff upgrade to archon: Increases range by 1
to compensate for the lategame nerf to reaver and, this way they are better to attack mutas
How to compensate this for zerg?
ZERG
Protoss gets faster darktemplars->no evolution requrement for for spore(the spore is already 50minerals cheaper btw)
Note also, that the sunken is already 25minerals cheaper also.
Zerg gets the unit roach(which i think will be very powerful against toss).
What else to give zerg?
Iam thinking here, a buff to lair buildtime (20sec, maybe 30sec)
To be able to unlock their firepower easier overall, and might lead to more agression.
It would be fine against protoss for sure with the buffs they received. How about against terran?
To compensate for this change, buff to fusion core would be nice(not to big but a slight)
to compensate against the lair and potentially compensate against the cheaper achieves for protoss(which will unlock arbiter somewhat faster)
|
The buff is still big for terran. And all in all, 10sec increase doesnt make up for it if terran goes fast expansion!
Well your assuming that there is no downside for not being able to produce anything out of the barracks while you use the barrack for getting the addon. Its very possible that Rift-abuse may give the protoss a good outcome here. Then it will work a bit different from BW, but be balanced in a different sense.
It will reduce the effectiveness of 1base pressure,
Yeh it will. However, I think the Maurauder should serve an important function here - IMO it should strenghten terrans early 1 rax + 1 factory pressure play vs protoss. Im not sure it does that atm. though, but maybe if it got a lower BT (?). The movement speed is also debateable (since it may make it to weak vs kited Dragoons (?).
Maybe if the Maurauder had a 25 second BT and 10% faster movement speed, then it may be pretty good to use it in pressure-oriented play early game?
|
Roach
I feel the units needs a change, what i would like is this->
50/50/1 in price-> more zerg feel,
range 2. Hp 100(maybe a slight dps nerf not sure)
The biggest problem with the hp nerf is the aoe attacks. So add a 50% aoe reduction when they burrow, IF it get troublesome against aoe? 50% Reduction already while they burrow-> it means, they get 3hits from siegetanks(which is alot already for their new cost)
Look at the 150hp roach-> with burrow against siegetanks its-> 5shots, which is very much. Although i like my roach more here(so they use their burrow play more, which the units is supposed to do)
Overall, i found these changes good because->
Kabel, you dont like the mine outrange the roach. I dont understand why? Mines is already BAD versus zerg.
They have the hydralisk which is almost anti mines(not literally), right?
The roach have actually their burrow ability which is very powerful.
The burrow will be good to also trigger mines. Like zealots do.
If roach cant outrange the spidermine i feel this would lead to nicer gameplay(and perhaps see mechplay play somewhat agressive against zerg, if we get lucky)
MECH suck vs zerg, period. No need to make them outrange the spidermine
What else do these change bring? Well, the dragoon i feel needs to be somewhat decent/good against the roach->even without the reaver nerf(the nerf to reaver i actually like)
If the colossous is the only good agaisnt roach, it would lead to stale gameplay here.
Less range means a bit more micro(not huge point tho),
it means less critical against zealots
and overall, better for goon.
Reaver
When i say i like the reaver nerf, and when i talked about the reaver in these posts iam pointing at the AOE nerf->
100%light
50%medium
25%armor
aoe thing, and not the singletarget damage nerf.
|
Marines agility
This thing here, is HUGE for terran.
If this stays, i just feel it will break some things. Iam not suggesting to revert it back to 100% bw, but a slight nerf to the marine atleast AND at the same time a buff to zealot and zergling. Not even sure it will be enough tbh.
Its like in bw, dragoons could kite marines very effectively, but here i am not sure they can(?)
Right now, with the agility. 1gate zealot pressure->the marines just outmicro it easy as hell(although, the zealot miss ALOT more right now)
The agility change here, its very huge against zerg and potentially against protoss to if bio gets available.
Miss on units
The thing is right now, its very very bad.
Zerglings is just much worser here compared to bw, to be honest, they feel like shit to play with.
They lose fights which they shouldnt lose.
4zerglings lose against 1 microed zealot for example, this should not happen. That is just one scenario, imagine in bigger fights. If zealots micro, the zerglings lose their power
At the same time, zealots lose some of their effectiveness to in some scenarios but its not as huge as how much the zerglings lose their effectiveness
One thing is to actually buff zerglings and zealot attacksystem like the marine already got buffed.
See how it plays out.
Its very possible that Rift-abuse may give the protoss a good outcome here
I have a hard time seeing how this can help protoss in a good way. Could you elaborate?
I think the Maurauder should serve an important function here - IMO
Why?
The marauder is completely new unit. Toss has nothing new here in these circumstances. Why bring it into the balance of the techlab.
Besides, marines is already good unit to put pressure with.
Each take 4shots to kill from a dragoon(i assume bw here) for 50minerals and do more damage for their cost to.
A marauder takes 7shots and do less damage for their cost.
Also, the agility on the marines are insane
|
Macromechanics and why they are all underpowered
There are two reasons for why the math done to create the current "balance" of the macromechanics used the wrong approach;
1) The math doesn't really say anything about whether its worth getting them relative to just building an additional production facility.
2) It doesn't take into account that races with more expensive production facilities benefit more from a 50% macroboost than races with less cheap facilities.
Therefore, we need to base the macroboost math on the alternative cost of investing in production facilities. E.g. we need to compare the benefit of investing in an OC, nexus upgrade or Queen to just getting an additional macro hatchery or factory.
Zerg
+ Show Spoiler +By investing in 2 queens you obtain the same efficiency as one macrohatchery assuming you inject perfectly and don't use the queen for anything else than injecting. While a hatchery including a drone costs 50 mins more, you also pay for the 4 supply of the Queens - which has a cost of 50 minerals.
So even if you inject perfectly, the only advantage you get out of using the Queen is creep spread and Enrage.
Terran
+ Show Spoiler + Below are some numbers;
- Each speedboosts lasts 15 and boosts production by 50%.
- Overcharge can be used 2.5 times each minute
- That means overcharge on 1 OC saves terran: 2.5*15*0.5 = 18.75 seconds in production time each minute
- So terran needs: 60/18.75 = 3.2 OC's to replicate the production boost that one factory provides. That means one factory is 3.2 times more efficiency than 1 OC in boosting terrans production.
Assuming an averagefactory costs 350 ressources (this takes into account that you some type gets a techlab and some time doens't) and an OC costs 125 mins --> the factory is only 2.8 more expensive, but 3.2 times more efficient. This also assumes that the extra cost of not being able to build anything out of the OC while it is researching is cancelled by the cost of devoting an scv to building the factory.
Scv Calldown
The alternative if the terran wants to build Scv's faster is to build an additional base (at 400 minerals) devoted entirely to Scv-production. Since noone does that, we have to assume its "overpriced". Thus, for a true comparison, we need to estimate the true value of that ability. Let's say that if we had the ability of investing in a building which could only build scv's (and nothing else - for instance it couldn't be used for mining) we would pay a price of 250 minerals.
So when terran invests in the OC he gets the ability to produce Scv's at a rate of 1 each 40th second. That means he can produce 1.5 scv's per minute. Now with the production building, he would be able to build 60/17.6 = 3.41 scv's per minute.
The productions building fair value relative to cost of OC = 2, yet it is 2.27 times more effective.
Note that, the outcome here for protoss is much much worse. CB used on gateway/barracks is probably around 3-4 times less efficient than just getting another gateway. The reason for this is that the opportunity cost of investing in a barracks/gateway is a lot less than investing in a factory.
Conclusion
+ Show Spoiler +
This means that the macromechanics are actually significantly overpriced, and thus the only reason you as terran should invest in it - should be for the ability to unloack scan. For protoss, if you don't plan on using Rift, there is simply no reason to get them. Since the value of creep spread isn't particularly high, I believe the main benefit the Queen provides (instead of macro hatchery) is Enrage. However, as the game progresses the value of the Queen declines due to inject being increasingly difficult to manage. Therefore, I believe a zerg player should never get more than 2 queens and he should never rebuild a Queen after it is lost. Instead, getting more macrohatcheries is a lot more efficient.
Note, when I did this math, I assumed that 1 energy took 1.6 seconds to regenerate. After checking on it, it actually seems that it takes 1.76 seconds. This means that macromechanics are even further underpowered than the numbers provided above.
Suggestions to balancing macromechanics
+ Show Spoiler +- Overcharge boosts production by 60% on factory + Starport but 100% on barracks. --> this gets very close to replicating the effect of production boosts used on factories instead of just getting an additonal factory. If possible make the boost 100% on barracks units. Overcharge on barrack is still slightly UP here, but I fear that a higher number, may have unintended consequences.
- CB boosts gateway production by 100%. Robo production by 65%, Nexus and upgrades by 50%.
- Queen larva boosts by 60% --> I wanna balance this through the logic that zerg can only have 85% efficiency on inject larva. So instead of getting 2.5 injects per minute you only get 2.125 injects per minute. 60% give us this type of value.
|
On December 06 2013 03:14 Hider wrote:
Thoughts on macromechanics affect on the amount of action in the game
Previously there has been some discussion of whether the ecoboosters for instance leads to less action or not as players focus's on building up an econ instead of investing into offensive units.
However, I actually think the reverse is the case: Ecoboosters and macromechanics will in general lead to more action.
To see why, let's put up a scenario where one race is immobile and another race is immobile. Let's also define two types of actions; 1) Harass-based and 2) Real fights.
The latter will only occur when the immobile race wants it too as the mobile race can't attack into a defended immobile race on two or three bases. The immobile race therefore needs to "move out" before real battles can occur.
However, untill that occurs, both races can choose to harass the other race. Macromechanics doesn't matter a lot here. Even if you invest alot into the eco, you can still afford a dropship with vultures or a warp prism with Dt's/Reavers in the early midgame.
Instead, I believe one way to make harass in the early midgame more powerfull is simply to reduce the infastructure costs of Starport and Robo. Something that is also benefical for the Collosus.
So while macromechanics doesn't matter a whole lot for the amount of harass in the game, I believe it allows real fights to occur faster than in BW. For instance, let's say in BW the terran wouldn't move out in PvT before he was at 160 supply on 3 bases. in BW that may happen at the 16th minute mark (random number). With macroemchanics, however, it may happen 1-2 minutes earlier (14-15th minute mark). This means that we get too see real battles faster than in BW.
I don't think this is the case, i actually think it's the other way around in pvt.
The way terran is right now with fast expand, they have faster saturation, faster siege tanks and faster detection. As toss you cannot go harass and go greedy at the same time, you're too vulnerable to counterharass this way (a runby of vultures could do game-ending damage). So you either expand, play defensive and try to keep up with terran in econ or you expand slower and go for harass. But terran right now is not as vulnerable as in bw, siegetanks are up faster and the only threat they have is from the air (sentinel / reaver / dt / drops), so they should be prepared and will not lose much. Due to this you are naturally behind and compared to bw you are much more behind because of terran's ecoboosters, you are never gonna catch up unless terran makes big mistakes. => playing safe and expanding becomes the norm => less action (payoff is too small).
So either make impact of ecoboosters less big or buff harass options for toss, because they feel really weak right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
