|
On December 08 2013 23:15 Kabel wrote:@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! 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!
Seriously. i can feel that youre a teacher in real life :D..
the pictures help alot dude..
|
@Hider math for macro mechanics
+ Show Spoiler +I think its best if you do the math for your self. I don´t question your calculations. I do think you raise some good points with the math you have done, and I have doubled checked the values and it seems correct. But I have some concerns regarding scaled macro mechanics, and maybe I have not understood your points regarding it. Let me explain what I mean: We assume CB, Overcharge and Inject get buffed from 50% to maybe 70%. That will accomplish three things: - The production balance between the races will be maintained, in terms of worker and army production, as we have now. - It will also make macro mechanics more important to use. (Since your math shows they are not that useful atm) - It will also feel more clean with a flat value. (A minor thing though) Yes, it will mean that CB and Overcharge are not optimal to use on cheap structures like Gateways or Barracks. Instead its better to just build more of them. P and T should rather use energy to boost workers, upgrades and produce units on more expensive structures. (Since that saves more resources.) If this is the case. then there is at least a couple of reasons to obtain the macro mechanics and use them throughout the game. When P or T reaches 3-4 bases, and we assume the general boost bonus is good enough, so they get macro mechanics at each base. Mainly they use the energy for worker production, defence, Scan, and on high tech units. If we look at Protoss, it is rare that they have more than 1-2 Robotics or Stargate in the mid-game. How many upgrades is realistic to research at the same time throughout the game? 2-4? This means there is maybe 3-6 "high tech" structures to use the energy on. Which will lead to a surplus of energy. Instead of it sitting in the Nexus, there is still a bonus to use it on Gateways. (I will try and calculate this as well as I can) However, as you say, it might lead to players playing more economical + opting for higher tech units and upgrades. At least they will prioritize their macro energy on those things. If the surplus of energy remains, they will not have enough structures early to use the energy on. If players want to go for action/offensive/pressure, they have to obtain more production structures. (To be more efficient in terms of cost) Or use macro mechanics anyways, because there is still a boost involved in it. (Compared to if the energy is not used.) I am ofc willing to scale the macro mechanics if necessary. Especially if it has many positive effects on the game. (Which it might have since it can lead to more armu production earler which leads to more action/fun.) But I am concerned how this will work in balance vs Zerg. Will Z need to find a middle value to use for Inject? For example: CB - 70% on Nexus, upgrades, Robo and Stargate, 100% on Gateway/Warp gate. Overcharge - 70% on Factory and Starport, 100% on Barrack. Inject - 85% on all. (Middle value) The % boost for CB and Overcharge shall be based on the relative cost towards the structures they are used on. So it indeed is more cost efficient to use APM on macro mechanics rather than just getting more production facilities. But that value shall IMO not be so superior that a player who does NOT use macro mechanics will automatically crumble. To summarize my main concern: How can scaled macro mechanics be balanced vs Zerg?
|
If we look at Protoss, it is rare that they have more than 1-2 Robotics or Stargate in the mid-game. How many upgrades is realistic to research at the same time throughout the game? 2-4? This means there is maybe 3-6 "high tech" structures to use the energy on. Which will lead to a surplus of energy. Instead of it sitting in the Nexus, there is still a bonus to use it on Gateways. (I will try and calculate this as well as I can)
So here is the thing: Let's say 100% CB on gateway is the neccesary value to make CB on gateway equal as strong as building an additional gateway. But in reality, we have chosen a flat CB - 70% on everything.
If you then get to a point in the game where you have excess energy, then you will indeed use it on the gateway. However, the next time you play you shuold make the correct decision of not getting Nexus upgrade on all your nexus's, since you end up using excess energy inefficient. Instead, you shuold maybe only get Nexus upgrade on 2 of the nexus's, which you use to chrono Forge + twilight + robo.
So regardless of how we twist it, an optimal player should almost never use CB on gateways. (there are ofc a very few circumstances where you may need to do it in order to survive - but generally, you shuldn't).
|
Aha ha ha yes, ok now I get it. It can be a sub-optimal play to overinvest in macro mechanics. And things that require APM and multitasking should IMO be encouraged, since that is one of the primary human skills involved in Starcraft. Thus, the better a player is at multitasking and using his APM, the more rewarded should he become. (If extra structures are better than using APM on macro mechanics, the "slower" way is rewarded.)
Thoughts:
+ Show Spoiler +
1. How can scaled macro mechanics be balanced vs Z? (To maintain the equal strengths the macro mechanics provide for the balance at the moment. I know you wrote about it, but I don´t get what you mean with 85%.) - 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. 2. How to balance worker production? If CB remains at 50% for workers, and Calldown SCV remains as it is, the worker production will be even between the races, in the longer run. (As earlier math shows.) T has a better immediate impact though. If Inject is buffed, to maintain its balance vs scaled CB and Overcharge, then Z worker production is also buffed. (And thus it becomes uneven)
3. How can Overcharge be scaled with Reactors in the equation? The easy solution is ofc to just remove it from the game. But I think it helps to add a difference between CB and Overcharge. CB - can be used on workers, upgrades, Cannons and boost army units. Overcharge - can be used on army units. Is weaker than CB, but can become stronger if used on a structure with Reactor. (Which also adds more reasons to get Reactors in the midgame. Adds more value to each Overcharge.) CB = better for higher tech units Overcharge = better for low tech units (Marines, Marauder, Vulture, Vikings etc, if Reactors are involved) Otherwise they become identical.
For those of you who read this and wonder what I mean with the equal balance in production, check out my earlier calculations about the macro mechanics current balance: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=455#9090
|
Each races early game is different and carefully balanced in BW. With stronger macro mechanics we might upset that balance eve if all races get an equal share of the cake. I am especially thinking about zerg who are 80% reliant on efficient early defense in order to get a good economy going. Remember 2 gate zealots vs zerg with strong CB?
Maybe we can buff the macro mechanics a lot more if we push them further back in tech? (Let CB require cyber core, OC require e-bay or factory or one of them and queens only come after evolution chamber or lair or one of them.)
|
On December 09 2013 01:59 Xiphias wrote:
Each races early game is different and carefully balanced in BW. With stronger macro mechanics we might upset that balance eve if all races get an equal share of the cake. I am especially thinking about zerg who are 80% reliant on efficient early defense in order to get a good economy going. Remember 2 gate zealots vs zerg with strong CB?
Maybe we can buff the macro mechanics a lot more if we push them further back in tech? (Let CB require cyber core, OC require e-bay or factory or one of them and queens only come after evolution chamber or lair or one of them.)
My suggestons actually doens't imply macromechanics become "OP" or a strong in any sense. Instead, it simply just balances them. With the current stat values of macromechanics, your actually wasting ressources getting them
How to balance worker production?
If CB remains at 50% for workers, and Calldown SCV remains as it is, the worker production will be even between the races, in the longer run. (As earlier math shows.) T has a better immediate impact though.
If Inject is buffed, to maintain its balance vs scaled CB and Overcharge, then Z worker production is also buffed. (And thus it becomes uneven).
Balancing worker production is harder to do than to balance production boosters. With production boosers we can compare them to the alternative of getting an addiitonal gateway for instance.
W/ worker boost the theoretical alternative is to build a structure that only serves the purpose of building workers. Since such a thing doesn't exist in the game, we need to come up with a fair value estimate. I used 250 minerals in my math. Maybe that's a bit in the high end - it's probably in the range of 200-250 minerals.
But after we have a picked a value, everything becomes a mathematical exercise where we need to make sure that everything has an equal opportunity cost. Then all macromechanics will be balanced, and we don't need any cross-races comparisons, because we already know that getting a Queen for the sole purpose of injecting is roughly as strong as getting a macrohatch. And we also know that boosting a barrack for extra production is roughly as efficient as getting an adiditional barrack.
This actually makes the game very simple because relative to BW, macromechanics won't have any effect on the production efficiency of any of the races. Looking isolated on macromechanics, it won't buff the races in any way.
If you only intend to use macromechanics for worker boost or production speed, you might as well not get them.
However, they offer two benefits;
- Some flexibity in when to use worker boost and when to use production boost. That has a bit of value.
- Some racespecific ability. E.g. Queen gets enrage, creep spread and ability to speed up production. Terran gets scan. Protoss gets Rift.
So with my sugestions - which obtains approximately balance, neither race will get any real buff from the macromechanics them selves. It may have an effect on the strenght of certain build orders and that's the only real uncertainty related to them. In some causes (Dragoon pressure vs terran), I actually believe you could call that an unintended positive consequence.
|
Suggestion for replacement to abduct
So I am not sure Abduct can really workout unless we go with the ability to kill the pull-line, but maybe that's too much editor-work. So instead, I suggest a simple solution that fulfills two criteria;
1) Good vs mech + reaver/expensive units
2) Focussed on individual unit micro (not AOE based).
How it works
- You target a unit with the ability. It has a high range (9) or so
- Energy cost of 50-75
- After the ability has been used a radius around the unit is created. The size of the radius is very small (like 1-2).
- Effect: It kills the unit if it doesn't move out a radius within 4 seconds (or so).
- If the unit manages to move away within the 4 seconds, it takes no damage at all.
Implications for gameplay
- Can be used without support (non-deathball friendly ability)
- Feels more intuitive than the current solution
- Actually can kill stuff. I believe abilities that either A) cant kill or B) doesn't improve the efficiency of your own units are generally boring (examples of fun aiblity = storm. Example of boring ability = EMP, Nerve Jammer).
- Unlike the current version of Graviton Beam, there is much more uncertainty related to this ability. In 90%+ of situations where a Corsair lifts up a Hydra for instance, you can predict the future outcome of what happens. This is due to the fact that you typically don't use Corsair lift up during battles where you risk losing Corsairs to target firing. Instead, you only use graviton when opponent doesn't have a critical mass of Hydralisks.
- Critical mass is a big nonfactor. You will see micro and uncertainty when it is used on a single isolated Siege Tanks for instance.
Regardless of whether the oppponent reacts well, it will always have the effect of forcing a reposition of the tanks or the Reaver, which gives the zerg player a small victory. So even when the unit takes no damage, there will still be gradients of success.
Weakness of the suggestion
It's very niche-based. It will definitely be very strong vs Tanks, and probably decent vs Reavers. However, it will have very little usage besides that. In general, I prefer abiltiies which have more usage than this, however, given the advantages it provides, I still prefer this design over any type of Abduct-variation.
|
|
|
I will look more into Abduct in the editor. Need to check what is possible and not.
How do we know abduct doesn't work? Can you guys clarify your reasoning behind why abduct isn't good, cause I'm not sure its definitive.
It "works" in regards to functioning properly. But the current version does not feel that fun to play with.
|
On December 09 2013 04:43 Laertes wrote:
How do we know abduct doesn't work? Can you guys clarify your reasoning behind why abduct isn't good, cause I'm not sure its definitive.
Also, check my latest stream in "past broadcast" (and skip a ton of mapping first....)
I completed porting New Bloody Ridge and sent it to IeZaeL for textures and doodads.
|
Some things here, is said the post after this one to.
Please read it tho kabel, even tho you might get a headache
I have said this before about abduct
the way it is now (stuns target for 12sec), the player will use it as a stun. Zerg cant kill the target but who cares, he stuns a key target which in many circumstances i say is better than the pull->kill thing
pvz, zerg will now use abudct to stun the hightemplars,reavers etc.
Dont like this.
new meta
Reason i want new meta is not for the sake of it.
I tried to solve the techlab trick which now is worse for gameplay imo.
Faster tanks, slower vulture upgrades. Most effecient way is to go fast expansion, which i dislike.
You wanna give terran the option to go 1base pressure builds here in tvp? Maybe also add a starport on top of this->more tactic, more strategy.
Now its not really possible. You see?
Terran never opens 2fac pressure anymore in tvp broodwar, because its a bad build
Faster speedupgrade for zealots, to open up room for less turtle, and more agression openers. Zerg goes fast hydraspeed? Protoss can now semi-match that speed with legspeed->more micro fight
Compare that to protoss defends with 6cannons.
Compare that to protoss always FFE->stargate->corsair.
After a while takes a third.
Look at bisu, he plays the same every single game.
And look at zerg, always the same to.
Broodwar the "expansion", isnt an expansion. The units were made already when they released "starcraft origininal", but cuz of time they had to release it.
The valkyrie is seen in a "starcraft origninal beta" screenshot for example.
Better macromechanics, why is that good
To open up more room for builds, new timings. Which will change the meta and overall give the player to think about
new stuff.
If the macroboost is not very good. It doesnt really affect it, when i play the game now i feel it doesnt speed it up atall, and therefore new "creative" stuff is hard
The meta in broodwar, is economy+tech for 12-15 ingame minutes->then fight.
How often do you see dropplay anymore? In zvp, it happens. But not very often. In tvz? Like never(?)
How is it fun to have a macroboost on production which doesnt do much?
@xiphias, you wrote
Remember 2 gate zealots vs zerg with strong CB?
Yeah we all remember that, protoss had a free production boost from second 1
while zerg got it much later, ofcourse it was imbalanced.
If it evens out, i dont see how it could "break" something.
|
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?
Take note, i didnt mention cheaper stargate.
All these things+the cheaper techlab with faster buildtime, and cheaper cyber for protoss, its changes and compensations at the same time for everyrace.
I am trying to fix the techlab problem we have(it affects bioplay from terran in a bad way, and buffs terran against toss when they fastexpand particular), and at the same time trying to "fix" the stale meta of pvz and to bring some more "viable" openers in tvp.
Dont forget if we put a cheaper templar achieves i suggested we might wanna change cost of fusion core to compensate terran for it.
Also a cheaper fucsioncore if faster lair is a problem or cheaper e-bay+slightly faster buildtime.
If this change would stop reaverplay to much than a slight buff to the reaver supportbay.
Iam not changing things just because, its a purpose behind it.
It wouldnt cause any more problems than what matrix for medic is already causing or the reactor. Even the goliath without armory is a potential problem here in tvp.
Because protoss opens same as in broodwar, lets say he go for warpprism +reaver.
Now terran can have goliaths out for example.
It would not cause any more problem imo, the opposite. It fixes things here overall and makes it funnier at the same time.
The faster legspeed is included with the new roach
Marine agilty needs to be considered. Either via balance changes or by changing the way they move, turn, react etc.
The marines are buffed from broodwar in their agility alot, iam not suggesting anything new here. Just to revert it 100% or revert it 25%+buff zealot and zergling and hydra.
A dps nerf doesnt compensate it
Reaver change, cause problem?
The aoe nerf, yes. In pvz.
Not in pvp or tvp.
Thats why i at the same time suggested maybe a 1range upgrade buff to archon to "compensate" for the lategame nerf of pvz. Maybe not the brighest buff, but i thought about archon vs muta with it at the same time. But probably protoss needs something else
. Dont forget, maybe the reaver is already better in this engine. Iam thinking here when the reaver shoots the ultralisk he will not cause splash to the zerglings close to him? etc...
Stalker
I think it will have a purpose in pvz, to support the archon as defence
|
Trololo "Extension Mods" which will be added in patch 2.1 will be a great option, now you can play without problem in StarBow on any given map.
|
|
|
On December 10 2013 01:57 IeZaeL wrote:
Bloody ridge v1.0 , couldn't get a proper overview sorry , dont know what's up with this map
hope you enjoy !
Looks just the same as when I ported it....
Jk, it looks AMAZING! Great job!. Kabel, you know what to do!
|
The marines are buffed from broodwar in their agility alot, iam not suggesting anything new here. Just to revert it 100% or revert it 25%+buff zealot and zergling and hydra.
A dps nerf doesnt compensate it
Assuming speedlings become normal to BW, are we really certain that Marines are better than in BW? I mean the 100% to 50% attack speed boost of Stim to be me seems like a big nerf.
And when I watch BW streams - Marines also rape a lot of stuff really hard in midsized battles there.
|
Kabel , pls wait before adding Bloody ridge to starbow. I sent Xiphias an updated version as he requested.
|
@A small patch for the test map
Here are the current stats used for the macro mechanics:
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=455#9090
Hiders math indicates that they are severely underpowered:
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=304955¤tpage=471#9419
Here are new values I and Hider have discussed. They will be tried tonight:
+ Show Spoiler +(I bold where there is a difference compared to the values we already have.)
Upgrade Nexus
- 100 minerals
- 40 sec BT
- Starts with 50 energy
- Max energy 100
- Requires Gateway
- CB lasts 20 seconds, boosts Robo, Stargate, Upgrades and Workers by 50%, Gateway/Warp gate by 100%, and costs 15 energy. (Difference is the Gateway boost)
- Rift cooldown 60 seconds, costs 50 energy.
Queen
- 150 minerals
- 40 sec BT
- Starts with 50 energy
- Max energy 100
- Requires Pool
- Inject lasts 24 seconds, boosts Larva by 60% and costs 15 energy. (Up from 50%)
- Creep tumor 25 energy
- Nurturing swarm costs 25 energy, heals 75 life OR speed up morphing structure by 50% during 20 seconds.
Orbital command
- 125 minerals
- 40 sec BT
- Starts with 50 energy
- Max energy 100
- Requires Barrack
- Calldown SCV cooldown 30 sec, costs 25 energy and 50 minerals.
- Overcharge costs 15 energy, boosts production speed by 50% at a Factory or Starport, Barrack by 100% during 20 seconds. (Barrack boost + duration increased from 15 to 20 seconds.)
- Scan 35 energy. (Instead of 25 energy. There is an upgrade at E-bay now that removes the energy cost.)
Comments by me:
- This makes each macro mechanic equal efficient in terms of cost, in relation to their structures. (Aka now there is a reason to use macro mechanics instead of just building extra Gateways, Barracks, Hatcheries etc. With the earlier values, it was better to get 1 Hatch instead of 2 Queens for example)
- I still doubt some of the values, but I want to try it with human opponents before anything else happens.
I will also upload Bloody ridge
Comments on the math?
|
bloody ridge: can't take geyser at borrom right.
|
It's fantastic!!!
Really awesome to have aesthetics done by actual mappers as opposed to our rag tag jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eNoFG89.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N3iXZsj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eq8Xfaa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SqP8tYE.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VouJ9K6.jpg)
