|
On August 03 2012 07:49 MNdakota wrote:No dude, lol. I am fucking god awful at making maps. Trust me. I really like maps like Tal'darim where it's wide open but not too wide open. Obviously the layout isn't the best but the size of the map is perfect and makes it feel must more larger scale. I could stream but no one is really on NA at this time. Let me check.
It would be nice to have a map at the size of Tal Darim. The reason that I don´t use TalDarim or ordinary sc2 maps is because they are so associated with SC2. People expect a certain game on them and they go nuts when their ordinary SC2 strats don´t work on the maps.
"Lol wtf is this shit, 4 gate always works on this map, now in this mod it doesn't!"
Instead, when people try this MOD, I want everything to feel new for them. If they play on a map they have never or rarely played on before, they don´t expect things to happen in a way they are used to. And this will make them less likely to rage quit and call me faggot 
|
On August 03 2012 07:54 Kabel wrote:Instead, when people try this MOD, I want everything to feel new for them. If they play on a map they have never or rarely played on before, they don´t expect things to happen in a way they are used to. And this will make them less likely to rage quit and call me faggot
Since you're online at the moment. Would we be able to see the range degrades on Marines, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks be reverted and give the range upgrade to Stalkers like they had before so they can do pressure on Bunkers and so forth. I'm not sure exactly if they have the upgrade or not mainly because I never touch Protoss, lol.
Turrets have an insane range of 8 (which I actually like) but Mutalisks at range 2 is, absurd. They're terrible at picking off tanks and so forth because they just get too close. Also, maybe giving Mutalisks a little higher range would be cool so they could pick off units better like they did in Brood War.
On an unrelated note. I really want an EU account.  I want to play with you guys! But no one is on NA really! TT
|
On August 03 2012 07:54 Kabel wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 07:49 MNdakota wrote:On August 03 2012 07:46 Kabel wrote:
Perhaps you can make maps? No dude, lol. I am fucking god awful at making maps. Trust me. I really like maps like Tal'darim where it's wide open but not too wide open. Obviously the layout isn't the best but the size of the map is perfect and makes it feel must more larger scale. I could stream but no one is really on NA at this time. Let me check. It would be nice to have a map at the size of Tal Darim. The reason that I don´t use TalDarim or ordinary sc2 maps is because they are so associated with SC2. People expect a certain game on them and they go nuts when their ordinary SC2 strats don´t work on the maps. "Lol wtf is this shit, 4 gate always works on this map, now in this mod it doesn't!" Instead, when people try this MOD, I want everything to feel new for them. If they play on a map they have never or rarely played on before, they don´t expect things to happen in a way they are used to. And this will make them less likely to rage quit and call me faggot
they still do ^^ but its less often :p
|
On August 03 2012 00:09 TaShadan wrote:
you forget that you can spam fungal and just fungal them several times (everytime the effect is over)
I didnt forget, I ignored it because its irrelevant.
if there is a scenario where spamming fungal becomes relevant, then you cannot deny the possibility of using maelstrom for similar purpose, since dark templars are available shortly after infestors in game time (assuming both players rushed for them) and a dark archon costs slightly less than double the gas of an infestor (compare: 125+125=250 gas vs 150 gas).
(true, one can argue that infestor is "easier" to get because its on the way to hive, but if anyone ever gets infestors simply because he happened to have the tech without planning for it, then its so late in the game that dark archons are not unrealistic at all)
if we somehow could spam fungal in any meaningful amount, meaning at least four fungals (a lower limit in my opinion), that means that a protoss would be able to have, lets do the math:
4 fungals, 2 per infestor = 2 infestors, for every 2 infestor we can have 1 dark archon, voila:
we can undoubtably have had a dark archon instead, if we played protoss.
then the question is: what is better, 1 maelstrom or 4 fungals? (1 dark archon can use 2 maelstroms if at full energy, but lets say its not at full energy for arguments sake)
I would take the maelstrom any day.
the maelstrom completely shuts the enemy down, very unlike fungal, which just stops them from moving.
when maelstromed, units cannot move, attack or use spells/abilities.
the advantage of the fungals?
it hits burrowed units and deals total 128 damage in a radius 2 circle (this is literally the maximum).
not impressive considering the alternative stops all affected units from dealing damage to you.
personally I would prefer fungal if I had the more powerful army, since I want to force as much of his army to fight as possible, while if my army is smaller, or weaker, I would prefer maelstrom, since it would reduce his damage output and pull the odds a little more in my favour, fungal growth cannot do this, it can only delay/force an inevitable confrontation (and tickle the enemy a little at the same time).
what im trying to say is
On August 02 2012 23:03 TaShadan wrote:
maelstrom is micro reducing but its so hard to get and the darcharchon is a useless unit and lockdown is only affecting single units
fungal was a standard spell and used alot and its a combination of mealstrom and plague
it deals damage and its stuns units which means they die for sure
"but its so hard to get and the darcharchon is a useless unit"
"used alot and its a combination of mealstrom and plague"
"which means they die for sure"
all of these statements are false (the rest is true), thus your logic doesn't hold. try again if you wish.
the reason why you even wrote those as if they were fact is because they are opinions. in our brains opinions are often mistaken for facts, it happens every day to everyone, me included, and it is exceedingly important to distance one self from opinions and only look at the facts when solving problems, and sometimes the facts are that the facts are not set in stone.
such as in this case, you seem to be dead set that any implementation of fungal growth would end up dealing efficient damage when actually, this is not true.
there is nothing that dictates that the original fungal growth is in any way worse for the game than maelstrom is.
thus fungal growth could possibly be a part of the game just fine.
not saying it should, just that it could.
p.s. I use beta-fungal as base for my arguments, I have already agreed that the current fungal is not recommended for this mod, see my previous post, but since kabel could implement whatever version of fungal he wishes, current balance is no limitation which would apply here.
any further counter-argument? I am confident I am right.
|
you ever used the spell? up for a game tomorrow? i really want to see how you rape me with maelstrom
|
On August 03 2012 07:58 MNdakota wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2012 07:54 Kabel wrote:Instead, when people try this MOD, I want everything to feel new for them. If they play on a map they have never or rarely played on before, they don´t expect things to happen in a way they are used to. And this will make them less likely to rage quit and call me faggot Since you're online at the moment. Would we be able to see the range degrades on Marines, Hydralisks, and Mutalisks be reverted and give the range upgrade to Stalkers like they had before so they can do pressure on Bunkers and so forth. I'm not sure exactly if they have the upgrade or not mainly because I never touch Protoss, lol. Turrets have an insane range of 8 (which I actually like) but Mutalisks at range 2 is, absurd. They're terrible at picking off tanks and so forth because they just get too close. Also, maybe giving Mutalisks a little higher range would be cool so they could pick off units better like they did in Brood War. On an unrelated note. I really want an EU account. I want to play with you guys! But no one is on NA really! TT
So everyone knows the current data:
Right now Marines & Hydras have range 4 instead of 5. Stalkers have range 5 instead of 6. Mutalisks has range 2 instead of 3.
Marines & Hydra can be upgraded into get +1 range. Stalkers can not at the moment. But I am considering adding one.
If I revert the changes to standard SC2 values, and keep the range upgrades for all units, upgraded Marines & Hydras will have range 6. Upgraded Stalkers range 7. Thats half the range of a siege tank (range 13), same range as lurkers (range 7) and reavers have range 10.
I feel that long range units are not so long range anymore if we compare it to ordinary ranged units. BUT, of course the range of siege units can be increased... (if necessary)
The reason I have lowered the range of the standard ranged units is to make them less effective in clumps. A huge clump of hydralisks with shorter range are not as effective vs zealot since NOT all hydras in the ball can shoot at the zealots.
I added this cause earlier huge balls of ranged units could only be killed by other balls of ranged units or AoE. Zealots & Zerglings melted as soon as they came close to balls of ranged units.
So. That was my reason. And many people do not like this. And I am not an impossible guy.
What do you people say? Revert the range to normal values or let it remain short as it is?
|
"ah i thought hydras do have 5 too"
my mistake sry. well i would not change it for now.
lets test it more.
EDIT: i just checked hydras do have 5 and +1 = 6
goliaths do have 6 aswell
|
I'd say don't give the range upgrade to Marines maybe? Also, Reaver range is kinda sort. They should be able to out range a Siege Tank that doesn't have a spotter.
I mainly think that Marines and Hydralisks should go back to their original range. But mostly Mutalisks should go back to range 3.
If you don't like the range then don't give them a range upgrade I would say.
|
EDIT: i just checked hydras do have 5 and +1 = 6
goliaths do have 6 aswell
Haha I thought they were on 4 & 5 range all the time!
On an unrelated note. I really want an EU account. I want to play with you guys! But no one is on NA really! TT
The EU community is slowly growing
We are ca 10 people who regulary plays it. (Correct me if I am exaggerating!)
And usually 1-2 curious newcomers enters the chat every day, at least that I know of.
Once this get even more final and things work and balance is better, we can start advertise for real. Hopefully NA can get a community around it too
I don´t think the new Arcade system is gonna benefit this so much. If players find out about Starbow is because they see this thread or that someone they know tells them to try it. If we could do some content on youtube or fancy pictures etc, that would perhaps attract even more people. Its great that you stream too
|
Yeah I could post some more YouTube videos and stream more but there's like maybe two other people on the NA channel.
|
On August 03 2012 08:12 TaShadan wrote:
you ever used the spell? up for a game tomorrow? i really want to see how you rape me with maelstrom
1. yes, I have used maelstrom in brood war, I assume it functions the same way in starbow?
2. I do plan to play today (I play on EU server), we could play if you like, but I will play zerg. my mainrace is only platinum and my offracing is horrible (the earliest I can play is 20:30 CEST)
3. lets say I would have played protoss and lost to you, what does that say? it says you are a better player than me, it says nothing about maelstrom. even if I lost using maelstroms there are too many factors like macro and multi-tasking ability which would affect the result vastly more than the usage of maelstroms.
4. lets say I would have played protoss and won against you, what does that say? it says I am a better player than you, it says nothing about maelstrom. even if I won using maelstroms there are too many factors like macro and multi-tasking ability which would affect the result vastly more than the usage of maelstroms.
5. similarly, if someone played against you and used fungals, was it automaticly the usage of fungal which made you win or lose? no, that sort of logic is absurd. there are many factors that matter.
now, it is possible to read this and accuse me of having said "actual games doesn't matter" and coming to the conclusion that "games can never be used for balancing" and being upset that I have seemingly put myself in a situation where I can never be proven wrong, thus causing anything I say to be completely useless, since I am emplying a variation of circular logic.
you would be half correct.
I do not think: "games can never be used for balancing"
but I do believe: "games where the opponents are of very differing skill level can not be used for balancing"
for a game to be of importance to balance, then balance will actually have to play a role in the result of the game.
if and only if a worse player wins, and wins even though the better player had no disadvantage such as being unprepared for a cheese, then it is of importance to balance.
see how arguing against myself strengthened my case? its magic, I know.
3 and 4 assumes there are no imbalances, which there most certainly is, but since we don't know in whos favour we can for now assume there is none.
besides, fungal growth isn't in the game and will not necessarily ever be in the game.
if you are going to convince me (or kabel, which really is the one your trying to convince) of anything then you will have to put more effort into proving you are right.
|
you know that maelstrom was hardly used by pros too? so you think the bw pros are noobs that dont know about the imba power of maelstrom?
the thing with maelstrom is that it is only vs bio and if you fail to get a good hit your archon will be useless for a while maybe even die. if you fail fungal you can cast a second one or burrow and retreat. (iam not sure but i think infestors mana regen is faster)
game balance is not about one spell or one unit its about alot of other stuff
mechanics, maps, unit compositions, strategy etc.
for example if you do the math dragoons in broodwar should lose vs mms even without stim but in reality good players micro them abd/or use high ground and win (depends on the numbers too, if there are too many marines dragoons will lose cause you cant micro all dragoons anymore, bu therefore you bring in psi storm or reaver). therefore if you are not having a certain amount of experience ingame you are not able to balance stuff just by doing math (yes your math was right).
why should i convince someone? i like it how it is right now
|
Some players, including me, have felt that the economy just doesn´t feel right for various reasons..
I have tried to rebuild the Brood War economy, just because I think that is an economy that works well. No reason to reinvent the wheel.
I want this statement to be true: People shall benefit from having more bases. If each base requires only 16 workers on minerals, you can support more bases.
So I found Brood War in my bookshelf, installed it and did some comparison between the current Starbow economy (which is a replica of the Sc2BW-mod) and the real Brood war economy. I am aware that the game time is different in the two games. So for the sake of measurement I used my cellphone and real time seconds.
Here is the data:
8 workers in Brood War in the same base collects 550 minerals per real time minute.
16 workers in Brood War in the same base collects 800 minerals per real time minute.
---
8 workers in Starbow in the same base collects 550 minerals per real time minute.
16 workers in Starbow in the same base collects 900 minerals per real time minute!!!
---
To go from 4 workers to 16 workers in Brood War takes 165 real time seconds.
To go from 6 workers to 16 workers in Starbow takes 150 real time seconds. (And even faster with Chrono boost & Calldown SCV)
---
3 workers on gas in Brood War collects 300 gas per real time minute.
3 workers on gas in Starbow collects 350 gas per real time minute.
---
To sum it up: In Starbow, minerals & gas are collected at a higer rate per base. Still most of the prices on units & buildingsa are standard. This means players can afford much more stuff. And to saturate one base is quicker. Also, keep in mind that Starbow starts with 6 workers, which gives an extra boost to the early economy as well.
Must this be a bad thing? Well, I think this might be the reason why fast expand right now is so strong. The player who goes for fast expand almost always beats a player that goes for a "standard" opening and tries to apply pressure.
I think the reason that the expanding player can support both an expansions and production facilities is due to the fast saturation. As soon as the expansion kicks in, the advantage of having one more base becomes huge. Combine that with the high early income by 6 workers, and you can build for example both a nexus and gateway quick.
Here is my suggestion on how to adjust these things:
Worker Built Time in Starbow is now 20 seconds. If that is increased to 22 seconds, the time it takes to saturate one base will be similar to the time it takes to saturate a base in BW.
If the minerals per trip is lowered to 7 instead of 8, the following results appear:
8 workers in the same base collects 475 minerals per real time minute. (550 in current Starbow, 550 in BW)
16 workers in the same base collects 800 minerals per real time minute. (900 in current Starbow, 800 in BW)
If the gas per trip is lowered to 7 instead of 8, the following results appear:
3 workers on gas collects 275 gas per real time minute. (350 in current Starbow, 300 in BW)
To sum it up again:
This will be closer to the values of BW, if we assume that is a good thing. Although the early mineral income of 8 workers will be less than what 8 workers in BW produce. But keep in mind that players now start with 6 workers. The gas income is slightly lower though. But I think that can be adjusted by changing prices of gas units. After all, change gas prices is easier than change mineral prices.
Why don´t I adjust the mining time or add a deaccleration on workers instead?
The reason is that if I add a delay to workers returning their cargo, it creates small gaps in the mineral line when the worker goes back and forth to the base and mineral line at a slow speed. A mineral line with 20 workers will generate more than what 16 workers does, due to the small gaps. I want to have 16 workers as a maximum, and right now, with the current mining time that is perfect.
I did however find a mining time of 6.4130 seconds that gave the results in BW. The bad thing with that was that the workers started messing around at the mineral line. Its a long working time, which makes the other workers who waits to go up and down searching for new minerals to mine. This makes mineral lines look over-saturated and ugly, even if they are not over-saturated!.
So what do you all think?
|
i would try to increase the build time of workers so the saturation of a new base is delayed
got raped good today :D
need info how i can make pressure with toss here and which units are good anti air if iam not able to scout and cant go corsairs
http://drop.sc/233500
http://drop.sc/233499
http://drop.sc/233498
http://drop.sc/233497
i tried to play with maelstrom in one of the games, i admit my play was sloppy but mealstrom only felt good in early game cause the recharge takes very long going for psi is much more cost effective and i can go for archons with hts.
|
Typing on cellphone during break at work, will keep it brief and whoever is reading will have to excuse me for my limited editing capabilities.
On August 03 2012 18:33 TaShadan wrote:
you know that maelstrom was hardly used by pros too? so you think the bw pros are noobs that dont know about the imba power of maelstrom?
no, but I must admit I did not know maelstrom did not affect mechanical units, I played broodwar mostly with friends, and as a result there were mainly zvp or pvz, that gave me the illusion that maelstrom affected everything.
While this is fairly important, and probably a major reason for pros not using it, I would still argue that pros did indeed use it in the pvz matchup to great effect.
Also, according to liquipedia, maelstrom cost 100 energy, so a dark archon can theoretically use 2. And dark archons have standard energy regen, same as infestor.
the thing with maelstrom is that it is only vs bio and if you fail to get a good hit your archon will be useless for a while maybe even die. if you fail fungal you can cast a second one or burrow and retreat. (iam not sure but i think infestors mana regen is faster)
Thus I would argue the above is false
game balance is not about one spell or one unit its about alot of other stuff
mechanics, maps, unit compositions, strategy etc.
for example if you do the math dragoons in broodwar should lose vs mms even without stim but in reality good players micro them abd/or use high ground and win (depends on the numbers too, if there are too many marines dragoons will lose cause you cant micro all dragoons anymore, bu therefore you bring in psi storm or reaver). therefore if you are not having a certain amount of experience ingame you are not able to balance stuff just by doing math (yes your math was right).
I agree.
In my opinion balance changes should be avoided in general and should only be done after much consideration and most importantly testing.
Balance changes is in my opinion a last resort to fix an issue which cannot be handled by community adaptation. Nothing else.
I just wanted to point out that a test is simply not valid if the opponents are not of equal skill.
(it is possible to make sub-tests where player skill is taken out of the equation, but that will rarely be able to finely tune balance.)
why should i convince someone? i like it how it is right now
So do I.
But when it seemed like you insinuated that the fungal growth spell was somehow bad design fundamentally and should be avoided at all costs, but maelstrom being fine, I reacted to the simple hypocrisy of it. Maelstrom is a more powerful, slightly harder to get fungal growth which only hits biological. If one is bad design, then the other is as well.
Do you disagree?
//Roblin
|
|
|
|
|
On August 04 2012 03:24 Laertes wrote:
Gossen, I feel you are far too obsessed with making SC2BW 2.0. We need to differentiate ourselves from that mod with a few key things, and I feel like if mining time is balanced, but NOT what you are going for, i'd go with staying with the balance. HOWEVER, I also feel that maybe you should make the mining system a little more complicated. If you're going to increase the time workers take to be built, I feel it needs to be done in a certain way so that All-ins won't be useless. What if we balanced the economy so it PANS when the base saturated. This means that as you are producing the economy will grow and grow, but as it saturates, the economy will pan. How should we do this?
I am going to ask Roblin to help me here, because he is good at breaking things down, and I am only good at building things up. I cannot even begin to imagine how we would make saturation not have much of an effect. I have an idea though, if saturation is 2 workers per mineral and there are 8 mineral fields, at 7mpt, then the net economy does something. There is always a mathematical net worth to each setup of the economy. Roblin, I seriously need your help brainstorming this, cause I can't figure out where to begin with a panned economy. Do that thing where you break everything down please :\.
sure thing, but right now I have game time on my schedule.
p.s. I agree, starbow is looking a lot more like BW than SC2, not really a mix right now.
edit: damn patching
edit2: optimizing -.-
|
|
|
Could we get some games going on on the NA server? Getting pretty bored right now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
