|
I have a hard time seeing how this can help protoss in a good way. Could you elaborate?
I mentioned this yesterday. If you walk past bunkers with 2-3 Dragoons before the Tank is out. You should be able to do a lot of economic damage with the Dragoons while being able to save the Dragoons by rifting home.
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
To replicate the balance of BW timing attacks if factory BT is increased. Im not sure what other types of options are better if techlab switch is in in the game. Any ideas?
|
So you either expand, play defensive and try to keep up with terran in econ or you expand slower and go for harass.
I don't agree that you can't do Sentinel harass or warp prim harass while defending against Vulture harass with your main army.
The key thing identifying harass (relative to real battles) are simply a low amount of ressources invested into the harass. But I agree, that the probability of seeing real battles during the early midgame has been reduced.
However, if you noticed, I assume that there would never be any real battles in that phase of the game. That's ofc not true in all games, however in most situations its a realistic assumption in a normal game where the immobile race doens't make an obvious error leading to a clear vulneraiblity. Instead, the protoss player simply has to turtle outside the terrans base.
The way terran is right now with fast expand, they have faster saturation, faster siege tanks and faster detection.
I believe that the main reason FE is better than in BW isn't really related to the concept behind production boost. Instead, it is impacted by techlab switching for instance.
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).
I don't agree here if we look isolated on the introduction of macromechanics. Let's say the terran chooses to invest a lot of extra ressources into double OC + extra scv's early game. In theory he should be much much more vulnerable to a 1-base play than in BW where he invested those ressources into defensive units.
So while the risk of during low-economy plays have increased, the probability of succes has increased as well.
|
To replicate the balance of BW timing attacks if factory BT is increased. Im not sure what other types of options are better if techlab switch is in in the game. Any ideas?
Yeah, i wrote the ideas in a post just recently.
I mentioned this yesterday. If you walk past bunkers with 2-3 Dragoons before the Tank is out
Ye i know you did, i just thought about this and i dont think they will cause good damage at all, i feel the opposite actually.
The toss will lose more than he kills, not even taking into account that he use a rift for it.
A decent terran will also wall his choke so the dragoons cant kite.
I believe that the main reason FE is better than in BW isn't really related to the concept behind production boost. Instead, it is impacted by techlab switching for instance.
I think its both, and i also think the ecoboost can be quite huge here, still i wanna see this playout when the ecoboosters are balanced(they have never been balanced ever since we went bw style)
In theory he should be much much more vulnerable to a 1-base play than in BW where he invested those ressources into defensive units.
In theory, could it not also lead to that partipular race also goes more defensive style since he gets more economy(more turrets etc), wasting more money in resources since he know the double income will pay off very soon anyway
Macromechanics and why they are all underpowered
I believe the math created for the current values is done using a wrong approach
Yeah, something must be very wrong now when you put it like this.
I think i have had this feeling all the time without knowing it that the game is not sped up by the macro overall
|
On December 06 2013 10:14 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +To replicate the balance of BW timing attacks if factory BT is increased. Im not sure what other types of options are better if techlab switch is in in the game. Any ideas? Yeah, i wrote the ideas in a post just recently. Show nested quote +I mentioned this yesterday. If you walk past bunkers with 2-3 Dragoons before the Tank is out Ye i know you did, i just thought about this and i dont think they will cause good damage at all, i feel the opposite actually. The toss will lose more than he kills, not even taking into account that he use a rift for it. A decent terran will also wall his choke so the dragoons cant kite.
How are you gonna wall off in time? In this case terran is investing his minerals into double-OC, scv-calldown. He simply doesn't have excess ressourcces for extra supply depots.
Further, this isn't about kiting at all. This is simply about positioning Dragoons behind mineral lines to force scv's to not mine and hopefully kill 1 or 3.
What do you mean by losing stuff? The point here is that teran basically has 0 DPS if he only has 2 Marines. This means you should never ever lose any Dragoon at all. The worst case simply is that you quickly get surrounded by the Scv's before you can get behind the mineral path and have to rift home earlier than you could hoped.
In theory, could it not also lead to that partipular race also goes more defensive style since he gets more economy(more turrets etc), wasting more money in resources since he know the double income will pay off very soon anyway
Well, but I think the point here is that if the risk/reward for going eco-heavy is the same as in BW. Aka risks increases for two reasons;
1) You invests more into eco, which means that there are certain periods in the game where you have less army stuff.
2) Opponent has the opportunity of using production boost on offensive based units which should make his pressure plays stronger.
Right now, a protoss player not getting nexus upgrade at all will have much better opportunities of doing damage to a greedy terran (which is simply flawed design in my opinion). So the latter atm. isn't a valid argument currently as production boost is signifciantly underpowered, but when/if it gets buffed, I believe that there is significant risk to focus'ing only on econ. So while reward may increase, risk should also increase.
But in the case where we see econ-focos'ed play, the real battles will start faster than in BW, which IMO is beneficial for the game.
|
How are you gonna wall off in time?
Two supply depots, and one factory walls it
Further, this isn't about kiting at all. This is simply about positioning Dragoons behind mineral lines to force scv's to not mine and hopefully kill 1 or 3.
What do you mean by losing stuff? The point here is that teran basically has 0 DPS if he only has 2 Marines
Well, the tank is soon to be out if he only makes two marines.
Also 2marines=15dps
3dragoons=15dps to light
One rift is 50energy
Now i dont know how many scvs are at the natural, iam guessing 12?
If there are 12, the goons will have a hard time getting behind the mineral line
That means you start the barracks techlab at the low ground on the natural and switch it with a factory (?)
Its a standard wall, 2supply depots, 1barack
And you build the techlab at that place, then lift it and plant the factory there
|
On December 06 2013 10:21 Foxxan wrote:Two supply depots, and one factory walls it
That means you start the barracks techlab at the low ground on the natural and switch it with a factory (?)
Well, the tank is soon to be out if he only makes two marines.
Also 2marines=15dps
3dragoons=15dps to light
One rift is 50energy
Now i dont know how many scvs are at the natural, iam guessing 12?
If there are 12, the goons will have a hard time getting behind the mineral line
I think when we played you had 3 Dragoons maybe 10 seconds before my Tank was out.
Now if we add 10 seconds extra to that. There is roughly a 20 second period where your 3 Dragoons can do damage. So the point here is that it doesn't need to be alot of damage. Forcing scv's to not mine for 10+ seconds and killing 1-3 is pretty decent. Assuming that you can tie your Dragoons up in a corner, a scv surround won't be that effective, and you should be able to kill some before you have to rift.
Its a standard wall, 2supply depots, 1barack
And you build the techlab at that place, then lift it and plant the factory there
Can you show me any Vod's where someone has a factory in front of their natural?
Problem as I see it is that some times you will be located in a starting position where the addon has to turn outside which shuold make it vulnerable to target firing by Dragoons.
|
Hmm cheaper Cyber, cheaper dragoon range and cheaper tech lab. Yeh that's quite interesting - better balance probably, but not sure its better "design".
I mean, terran will do the same thing as now, quick siege tank out to neglect any early Dragoon pressure play. Wouldn't it better if early Dragoon pressure play was stronger by just reducing Dragoon range research duration?
|
On December 06 2013 10:49 Hider wrote:
Hmm cheaper Cyber, cheaper dragoon range and cheaper tech lab. Yeh that's quite interesting - better balance probably, but not sure its better "design".
I mean, terran will do the same thing as now, quick siege tank out to neglect any early Dragoon pressure play. Wouldn't it better if early Dragoon pressure play was stronger by just reducing Dragoon range research duration?
No it wouldnt do much since toss will not have many dragoons anyway.
I think u forgot cheaper robo to.
I think it opens up more room for agressive openers overall.
Dunno if thats good or bad design, i dont know. It would change the meta and more room for new plays, thats for sure.
Can you show me any Vod's where someone has a factory in front of their natural?
I actually wrote walling of the choke, so i assumed we meant that
|
Investing chrono and rift in 3 dragoons and delaying expo significantly is not a good investment for killing (maybe) 3 scv's.
And if you go economically, you actually need to get ahead of the terran in econ, because terran units just are much more cost-efficient, so you need to get your third some time before the terran. I have a hard time seeing how one would make a cost-efficient harass investment while not being greedy on units (ever had the chance to feel 8 vultures pushing out vs your 4 dragoons? it doesn't end pretty) and meanwhile getting your important upgrades for midgame. Best thing i can come up with is dt-drop, but they are stopped so easily because the terran always has some turrets.
It all does not feel worth it and you're better off investing in the midgame, like getting +1 weapons a bit faster instead of getting the dt's.
=> less action
|
I'm working on porting Circuit Breaker atm.
I am considering doing some Starbow game streaming tonight. If no one is online I can stream the mapping so you guys can join in twitch chat with suggestions.
|
Mapping now at:
twitch.tv/SC2_Starbow
Feel free to comment in chat for feedback. Porting Circuit Breaker.
|
I would like to note that when the arcade mode will be free. Maybe then it must be emphasized that Starbow will be free for all 
|
I have now read through the last two pages of the thread and done a summary of Hiders & Foxxans suggested changes, based on the last days of playtesting. I will only summarize them as an overview. Their reasons can be found on page 470-472. If I have missunderstood anything, please enlighten me.
First of all, Foxxan raises an important question:
>>>+ Show Spoiler +This will change the meta too, which we all want? Yes and no. There are two aspects I try to consider: - Let the metagame be close to BW for the sake of balance and familiarity - Change it in ways that allows the game to be played in new ways too. Changes have different effects on the metagame, in terms of fun. - If for example a new unit is added to the game, that will have potential to be fun for the metagame. - Compare it to if we change Zergling build time to 12 seconds. That will also affect the metagame, but probably not make the game more fun or interesting to play. Rather it will only affect build order, force earlier defence vs rush etc. Still, both changes would affect how players play the game and make new things possible. How detailed shall we be when we design the metagame? The more players who play this, the more suggestions for balance changes will come. And high level players will have good reasons for their ideas. My personal approach is not to steer it too much in detail. When Starbow is released, I want to have laid the broad foundation for the game, then its up to players to explore and adapt. Make sure all units and spells feel fun and interesting to play with. But if we can identify balance changes that are both needed in obvious ways AND make the game fun, then I am more willing to consider them. An example would be to reduce the cost of Robotic + Starport. It would allow air harassment and dropplay to happen earlier in the game, which I think is fun to encourage. Its a tricky line to balance on. I just wanted to share my view on it.
Hiders suggestions:
>>>+ Show Spoiler +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.
- Science Vessel can use a hook ability that pulls any friendly unit within maybe range 9 to the location of the Vessel.
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.
- Research time of Dragoon range reduced by 15 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)
Foxxans suggestions:
>>>+ Show Spoiler + - Decrease buildtime and cost of Techlab: 25/25, 20BT - Maybe add 15 or 20 seconds extra time on Siege tech upgrade. - Reduce price of Cyber core to 150 from 200. - Reduce price of dragoon range to 100/100 from 150/150. - Reduce price of robotic to 150/150 from 200/200. - Cheaper citadel by 50minerals, and 10 sec faster BT - Legspeed upgrade 50/50 cheaper, and 10 sec faster BT - 10 sec faster BT Templar Archieves, and 150/150 cost of Storm instead of 200/200. - Lair build time 20 or 30 sec faster. - Marine agilty needs to be considered. Either via balance changes or by changing the way they move, turn, react etc. - Roach changes: Cost 50/50 instead of 100/50. Attack range 2 instead of 3. HP 100 instead of 150. Here is a post where Foxxan argues for his suggestions: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=471#9415
Hiders math for macro mechanics:
>>>+ Show Spoiler +I quote his full math post: On December 06 2013 09:44 Hider wrote:Macromechanics and why they are all underpoweredThere 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. 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.
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.
- 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.
So it is most important that Gateways gets a bigger boost than Nexus/upgrades as it has a a larger effect on the gameplay. If CB just got buffed to 65% for everything for instance, you would downprirotize your production as protoss and get faster ups + better econ instead, since using it on gateway would be highly inferior. This probably reduces the amount of action in the game a bit.
For terran you have to use overcharge on production, but if that got buffed to 60% for everything, it would make mech a bit stronger relative to bio. Since I don't think its the intention with macromechanics to balance/buff unit compositions, barracks and gateways should IMO be 100% boost.
My response to macro mechanics:
>>>+ Show Spoiler +You do raise an important aspect of macro mechancis. If the benefit is not high enough, players might instead just get extra production structures. There must be an reward for a player who has high APM and focuses on his macro.
But why is not a general increase in efficieny enough for all macro mechanics?
If CB, Inject and Overcharge got buffed from 50% to maybe 70%, it would be more worthwile to use them on all structures. In terms of cost efficient, yes it would still be better to use them on some structures. For example, its better to Boost out units from an expensive Robo bay compared to a Gateway. (Its so cheap to just get more Gateways.)
But since each CB is so cheap in energy, Protoss will still get excess in energy, especilly when there are 2+ Nexi on the field. Thus, a player with high APM can still get an advantage in Gateway production by using his excess energy from his Nexi on them? Same with Overcharge, especially if Scan gets unlocked as an upgrade who makes it not cost energy anymore. Same with Inject.
How can Inject, who gives a flat % boost to all larvas, be balanced vs CB or Overcharge who are scaled vs different structures?
Lets assume two high level players in a PvP.
One of them uses no Chrono boost the entire game.
The other player does. He uses it non-stop.
Would not the second player get a huge macro lead? (If the CB is flat 50% or 70% for example)
If that is the case, then there is still a reward in using it?
We also need to settle on HOW important macro mechanics shall be. Inject in SC2 is absolutely crucial for all production.
Keep in mind that Overcharge is made weaker on purpose than CB, since I still let T have Reactors. (Requires E-bay to avoid breaking early game.) Which means that T gets a bigger bonus when Overcharge is used on low-tech units, like Marines, Marauders or Vultures, compared to CB who is stronger when used on high tech units. (That difference need to be considered more though.)
Summary of my questions:
1.) Why is a big general buff to all macro mechanics not enough? (For example 50% to 70%)
2.) Is there any reward at all in using CB in a PvP, compared to a player who does not?
3.) How important shall macro mechanics be?
4.) How can scaled macro mechanics be balanced vs Zerg, in terms of production strength?
(Atm, T, P and Z can boost production by 50% each IF they use macro mechanics non-stop. The problem is that its not worth doing it, since getting extra production facilities is just better.)
My response to both Hider + Foxxans suggestions:
>>>+ Show Spoiler +In some areas, you share the same view. In other areas you come with different suggestions for the same problem. Its easy to roll away with changes. One thing here, one thing there and all of a sudden the balance/game is very different. (And new problems have emerged.)
What balance problems are most crucial to take care off?
I would say:
- all macro mechanics numbers
- Terran opening vs Protoss (P has a hard time to apply pressure due to the Tech lab trick etc)
- Spider mines/Vulture
- Stalker + Colossus
- Random annoying bugs like Ultralisk size etc
- Bio vs Zerg?
Things like cheaper Stargate, Robo, faster Leg-speed, faster Templar tech, faster Lair tech etc might be fun and interesting for the game. But I would not put priority into it right away, since I fear it might cause some problems? Same with Reaver splash - it depends on how the Colossu/Robo unit ends up being.
I can have a new patch up at 20.00 tonight on EU. (And Xiphias awesome version of Circuit Breaker!!!)
|
Another potential problem (maaaybe it was raised and I did not see it, I read it through but not thoroughly (see what I did there...)
Anyhow... Abduct:
- It now pulls the unit AND makes it impossible to kill it.... I saw it used on my stream yesterday. I understand the reasoning behind ti, but it just feels really odd to me. It's like getting an ice-cream but you can't eat it until all your brothers and sisters also are ready to eat theirs. (OK, bad analogy...)
Just pulling the unit = It might escape too easily (especially with a nerfed range)
Pulling the unit and freezing it = Guarantee kill.
So we make pulling + freeze + can't be killed, which just feels weird.
How about pulling with a shorter freeze (where it can be killed)? Or just old abduct? Or try neural parasite? (With a shorter range since the Viper can fly)
@ Macro mechanics.
I also think they should not be so good as to be game-chancing if you forget them at a lower level. They should be the difference of a good player and a great player. Increasing the skill-cap but not be fundamental for the game itself.
|
wow just played 5 games~ coming from practicing bw everyday
i feel home!
- action all over the map, small engagements
- diversity
+ i can play almost 1:1 bw buildorders
this is starcraft
|
@Abduct
+ Show Spoiler +I agree Xiphias. I am not satisfied with the Sbow version of Abduct. But I don´t kinda like the SC2 version either. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YbCj6Fr.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KCgUdWW.jpg) I would prefer if Abduct was useful both with small and large armies. I think the ability has potential to become fun. Abduct and Shock at Ghost are IMO the two spells I am most unsatisfied with. Ideas are always welcome!
@ONEofUS
+ Show Spoiler +Glad you enjoy it!
Sbow tries to feel familiar to BW, but still add some new content into the game. (Otherwise the game might feel too much like a copy of BW.) There is currently a Starbow test map where a couple of new units are tried, to see if they can fit into the game in a fun way. (And this thread is the place where all playtesters and everyone involved in the development/community share feedback, ideas etc on how to improve the game.)
Feel free to join us tonight on EU 20.00 CET!
|
On December 08 2013 22:43 Xiphias wrote:
Another potential problem (maaaybe it was raised and I did not see it, I read it through but not thoroughly (see what I did there...)
Anyhow... Abduct:
- It now pulls the unit AND makes it impossible to kill it.... I saw it used on my stream yesterday. I understand the reasoning behind ti, but it just feels really odd to me. It's like getting an ice-cream but you can't eat it until all your brothers and sisters also are ready to eat theirs. (OK, bad analogy...)
Just pulling the unit = It might escape too easily (especially with a nerfed range)
Pulling the unit and freezing it = Guarantee kill.
So we make pulling + freeze + can't be killed, which just feels weird.
How about pulling with a shorter freeze (where it can be killed)? Or just old abduct? Or try neural parasite? (With a shorter range since the Viper can fly)
Yeh I agree here - it felt very weird/unintuitive to see that Viper Abduct. I feel like a different solutions is needed.
If its absolutely impossible to implement the "target the pull-thing" (in order to make Abduct remicro-based), then maybe a shorter range w/ the HOTs approach is the best solution? Maybe a range of 6?
|
Lets assume two high level players in a PvP.
One of them uses no Chrono boost the entire game.
The other player does. He uses it non-stop.
Would not the second player get a huge macro lead? (If the CB is flat 50% or 70% for example)
Assuming neither player uses rift, and the player who doens't use CB also doesn't upgrade his Nexus. If CB is 50%, then the player who doesn't upgrade his nexus gets a good advantage for two reasons;
1) He is better off spending the ressources on extra production facilities/faster forge/faster twilight --> this is more efficient usage of ressources.
2) He can free up APM to do other stuff.
If CB is 70% flat, then the player who upgrades his nexus can produce more efficient at the expense of extra APM neccsaary.
However, with 70% flat CB compared to no CB at all in the game, then gameplay will be different. To be more precise, it will change the balance in this way;
- Nerf to gateway production
- Buff to Robo production
- Buff to faster ups
These things probably imply that you have will less units out, thus you will prepare more for the late-game. To replicate BW balance, we need to make sure that the ratio of boost % to production cost is similar. This imples roughly 100% boost to barracks and gateway. Otherwise, it will simply favor more tech-based playstyles.
Also note that 100% gateway boost solves the issue Foxxan had with my suggestion of "only" reducing research time of Dragoon range. He argued that that wouldn't be enough since you would have too few Dragoons out when the first tanks came out. With 100% gateway boost + faster range research, that problem is actually solved, and I believe it will do a pretty good job of replicating BW balance. Now you can have both faster range out + more Dragoons out at a similar time.
|
But there is still excess in energy?
Even if its better to use CB on upgrades+high tech units, there will be energy left over, especially when many Nexuses are in play. Good players can then spend it on Gateways to still get a boost from it. (Even if the bonus is not as good as on a higher tech structure.) Its not often players produce high tech units + has many upgrades being researched at the same time, to make all CB energy be drained? (General assumption)
These things probably imply that you have will less units out, thus you will prepare more for the late-game. To replicate BW balance, we need to make sure that the ratio of boost % to production cost is similar. This imples roughly 100% boost to barracks and gateway. Otherwise, it will simply favor more tech-based playstyles.
But isn´t this purely a meta-game thing? If players want to go for early/mid game aggression, they can use CB to do so. The opponent who techs up with his CB will then be vulnerable since he is behind in army, even if the tech boost is better? (Assuming the meta game becomes explored and some timings become known to players etc)
|
On December 09 2013 00:06 Kabel wrote:
But there is still excess in energy?
Even if its better to use CB on upgrades+high tech units, there will be energy left over, especially when many Nexuses are in play. Good players can then spend it on Gateways to still get a boost from it.
I think its best if you do the math for your self. I came to the conclusion that your production over time is faster if you just build another gateway instead.
Its true that you get an additional fixed "advantage" of having mulitiple chrono avaiable when you initially research it. However, let's assume that cancels out with the fact that you can't build any probes while the Nexus is upgrading.
Then we can simply look isolated at the variable benefits of building another gateweay relative to using CB constantly on the gateway given how fast energy regenerates.
But isn´t this purely a meta-game thing? If players want to go for early/mid game aggression, they can use CB to do so. The opponent who techs up with his CB will then be vulnerable since he is behind in army? (Assuming the meta game becomes explored and some timings become known to players etc)
No its a pure math thing - The cost of getting an additional barrack or gateway is simply much less than getting an additional factory or Robo. Since you wanna use your ressources as efficient as possible you rather use your speed boosts on the expensive production facilities to avoid building addiitonal ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
