On August 16 2012 17:18 decemberscalm wrote: Hi! Casted a match and uploaded it to youtube.com, here is the link: [link]. That was my first cast so apologizes if I wasn't incredibly good, but I think it turned out reasonably professional. This game needs more exposure. Just from watching the two replays I already like it more than vanilla.
On that note, I won't be able to play until I'm moved in with my girlfriend in the next few days, but I'll be glad to match up with any NA players afterwards. I'm an extremely rusty masters player. Looking forward to playing matches with you.
I enjoyed this a lot and this is the sort of thing I was browsing Youtube forever to find. Please make more as Im very interested in watching it and i think there is a lot more people like me.
Thanks! I know I can do a much better job next time, it was really rough.
I need some NA players on my friends list. If anyone is down hit me via pm with your friend info.
I will try to get some better games for you to cast. I also aim to have a new update up on NA tomorrow. I can´t publish there myself, but my friend UloseTheGame does. I send the update to him. Cause the current update on NA is old and bad.
On August 17 2012 04:13 Kabel wrote: But I am curious about this factor: "Their collision radii is just too small right now in comparison to their movement speed"
If you accord to SC2, how is the interaction between fast units & radius? Or rather, how come that you think the radii is too small? What effects on the game does it have?
Oh god, lol. Fully and accurately explaining the detail would require several months of thought/debate/preparation/writing.
Real fast: it's very important to add that their attack range is also too small.
To boil all the details down into one idea: with higher movement speed and smaller collision radii, deathballing is encouraged. No ifs ands or buts about it.
With slower movement speed (I don't really recommend changing this) and bigger collision radii, spreading units out more widely across the field becomes more effective.
It's not really up for debate IMO. This is fact. (I don't think you're arguing against me, I think you want me to argue for you :D).
How bad do you want the details? >.<
the colission radii makes obvious sense, movement speed is less obvious but nonetheless true as far as I can think, but range comment eludes me in my first thoughts.
so lets see if I can reverse engineer your thinking here.
conclusions: small collision radii encourages deathballs. short range encourages deathballs (or did I misinterpret "their attack range is also too small." ? please do tell me if I did) fast movement speed encourages deathballs.
the obvious one: small collision radii encourages deathballs. small units -> many units can battle simoultaneously -> battle efficiency of army increases much faster than linearly (by number of units in army) -> deathball is the most efficient formation for moving armies.
the less obvious one: fast movement speed encourages deathballs. fast units -> little time to control -> hard to individually micro parts of army -> players try to use strategies where microing is unnecessary (or redundant) -> deathball I have been thinking about this a bit previously, and come to the personal conclusion that reducing units relative movement speed will do very little for making the game more interesting, in my opinion, since practically the same effect can be achieved by simply playing on normal speed instead of fastest speed, and since in the starcraft community skill is valued higher than any trait, the starcraft community will demand the game to be played on the hardest difficulty, which is synonymous to highest speed. the only potential differences would be: a) rush-strategies would be weaker (since the defender gets much faster reinforcements/has more time to react/ has more time to produce defence) b) worker-scouts would be untouchable (unless the mineral per trip would be increased to allow workers to have the same income even though they have slower speed)
the one I'm trying to figure out myself: short range encourages deathballs. using this logic, that would mean zerglings is a better unit to be massed for the sake of creating a deathball than marines are. we have data that this is not true, It doesn't seem to make sense. (two zerglings beat one marine, 400 zerglings lose to 200 marines) but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, but I'm digging deeper. (though I suspect it was a typo) oh, wait, I think I found something. my first thought was trying to compare any game with the same game but with double range on everything, and trying to simulate what would happen in the minds of the players, what would they do and why? then I realized the maps would have to be twice as big, else siege units would be way too powerful since they would be able to reach about half of the map. (games where only siege units are used are theoretically very positional though, so thats a good thing I guess) then I realized that would mean the units collision size would also have to be doubled, since else it would just be the normal game with half the collision size, which we already concluded encourage deathballs. and finally I realized that if a game has had its model, its range and its map doubled in size, what has really happened? the movement speed has been halved. so in theory I guess you are right, increasing range on units will decrease their movement speed relative to their range, which will discourage deathballs due to slow speed, however, it is a very round-about way to do it and would also require several changes around the rest of the game, such as tweaking the movement speed of things that does not rely on range to be effective, such as dropships. also this method would make short-range units even weaker against deathballs of (longer) ranged units, thus being counterproductive in its own way.
did I go wrong anywhere? please do tell, It feels like there's more to it, something I missed.
//Roblin
p.s. excellent post about FRB, I really enjoyed the read. personally I think SC2 could be "fixed" of most of its problems through pure mapdesign. for example the deathball syndrome can be severely lessened, the 3-base maxout can be removed, etc.
On August 17 2012 14:02 pyrostat wrote: if i may ask why is this so popular?
Well, it's mainly about personal preferences and I'm going to try to speak for the folks who play.
It's mainly popular as you say it because we enjoy the area control aspect that Brood War had to offer. We don't like the current state of StarCraft 2 because of the deathball and how unattractive fights are.
I enjoy it for the area control. I hope the others that play agree with me.
On August 17 2012 14:02 pyrostat wrote: if i may ask why is this so popular?
Well, it's mainly about personal preferences and I'm going to try to speak for the folks who play.
It's mainly popular as you say it because we enjoy the area control aspect that Brood War had to offer. We don't like the current state of StarCraft 2 because of the deathball and how unattractive fights are.
I enjoy it for the area control. I hope the others that play agree with me.
Hopefully I answered your question.
what makes this different from the typical bw sc2 custom games?
On August 17 2012 14:02 pyrostat wrote: if i may ask why is this so popular?
Well, it's mainly about personal preferences and I'm going to try to speak for the folks who play.
It's mainly popular as you say it because we enjoy the area control aspect that Brood War had to offer. We don't like the current state of StarCraft 2 because of the deathball and how unattractive fights are.
I enjoy it for the area control. I hope the others that play agree with me.
Hopefully I answered your question.
what makes this different from the typical bw sc2 custom games?
Starbow is StarCraft 2 and Brood War melded together. So it offers the great game-play aspects of both games.
Im out for couple of days and again a lot of changes
Immortal costs 100 minerals & 200 gas now. (It was vice versa before) Protoss had no gas heavy units until High Templars or Arbiters. Orbital Command has 100 energy as a maximum. Earlier, Terran had acess to almost unlimited scans. Vikings damage reduced from 6 missiles x 8 dmg to 6 missiles x 6 dmg. They still deal splash vs air units. SCVs life reduced from 60 to 50. (They are hard to kill during bunker rushes.) Reavers are now armored again. Each map now has 9 mineral patches at the main & 7 at the natural expansion. (Eaerlier it was 8 & 8)
Ultralisks armor maybe works now...
Sieged Siege tanks deal 35 dmg to TARGET light unit, but the splash dmg deal 45 dmg. It deals 45 dmg vs everything else and 65 vs armored. (Earlier the splash dmg did 50 dmg vs light units.)
I´m online now on EU if anyone wanna play!
1. Immortal: Do really toss need gas expensive units early? Teching is quite expensive and important for toss. Not saying change is bad or good, just... well, thats quite weird to have 100/200 imortal and 200/100 voidray :D
2. 100max energy on OCs. Seems fine i think. I have nothing against this.
3. Have seen them only few times but they really dealt quite a lot of dmg vs mass muta. Im only not sure if you are not too hurry with all these balance changes.
4. Well, i liked hyper tanky scvs. I would prefer to nerf rines hps by a bit and maybe increase bunker BT instead?
5. Reavers cant shoot up and down hil >.>. Cool they are armored but right now they are too easy to control, and too rewarding imho.
6. Mineral patches. Worked in BW, may encourage pressure builds. We talked about that before, and you know i agree with that.
7. I dont like this one at all... It would be better to if splash dealt just 35 and bonus vs armored. Most of units against which splash is effective are anyway light or not massable (lings,marines,zealots. only hydras and partially vultures are massable nonlight, nonarmored unit)
Dakota:
Well... I was out for 2 days. Now im on laptop, so if you want you can play some games if you will stream ^^.
1. Immortal: Do really toss need gas expensive units early? Teching is quite expensive and important for toss. Not saying change is bad or good, just... well, thats quite weird to have 100/200 imortal and 200/100 voidray :D
2. Have seen them only few times but they really dealt quite a lot of dmg vs mass muta. Im only not sure if you are not too hurry with all these balance changes.
3. Well, i liked hyper tanky scvs. I would prefer to nerf rines hps by a bit and maybe increase bunker BT instead?
4. Reavers cant shoot up and down hil >.>. Cool they are armored but right now they are too easy to control, and too rewarding imho.
5. I dont like this one at all... It would be better to if splash dealt just 35 and bonus vs armored. Most of units against which splash is effective are anyway light or not massable (lings,marines,zealots. only hydras and partially vultures are massable nonlight, nonarmored unit)
1. Need and need. I want races to have the option of spending gas on midgame units. Zerg is a great example for that: They can choose to spend their gas on mutalisks or lurkers in the midgame. Or use it to upgrade/tech. Protoss has no such option now. Terran seems to lack that as well. Well, they have tanks and factories at least that requires gas. When Immortals now cost 100/200, Protoss can sink gas into them if they want. But if they do, they delay their tech tree.. Always more intersting with options.
2. In a couple of games played during the last 2-3 days Vikings melted mutalisks, broodlords, corruptors, scourges and even Carriers. Something needed to be done and I think a slight damage reduction won´t hurt. Otherwise I could increase cost, add longer cooldown or other disadvantages. Besides, by lowering the damage on each missile, they become less good vs large flying units like Carriers, Battlecruisers etc, since their armor takes away a huge part of the Viking dmg. I don´t want Vikings to overlap with Wraiths. Vikings are good vs smaller clumped units, while Wraiths & Goliaths takes care of the armored ones.
3. 60 HP on SCVs are cool. But is there really a reason? Now, with salvage on bunkers, calldown SCV to add 1 more worker to the bunker rush, strong SCVs seemed kinda.. dangerous early on.. I rather prefer to have stronger marines, since they are a combat unit. Bunker BT is something I have thought about but haven´t changed. Or you have any reasons why SCVs should have 60 HP?
Oh I have thought about it now and 60 HP on SCVs serves a good purposes: It strengthens the defenders advantage thing, which I wanna give more of to Terran. Protoss can Recall & Warp in, Zerg can move fast on Creep. Terran on the other hand has what they have at a base to defend themselves. Thereby 60 Hp SCVs can be crucial in the defences of a lonely outpost.
I will revert that change back into 60 HP and increase the build time on bunkers from 45 to 55, (since the SCV is harder to kill)
4. If you find me someone good at the editor who fixes this, then I would change it. I don´t have the skill and the people I have asked hasn´t been able to fix it either. So I think the current solution is the best of the worst. Now we have a unit that actually works and hit´s when it attacks! But if it is to good, there are areas to nerfe it in.. Cost, damage, splash radius, HP etc..
5. Yes it would be better. But once again, I can´t get it to work because patch 1.5 made negative values impossible to add to damage effects. The closest I can get is to make a target light-unit get reduced dmg thanks to a buff. But I can´t do anything about the splash damage of 45. (or 50 as it was before) If you find someone who can fix it, tell me!
1. We will see in time for sure how it will work out. 2. I dont like so quick changes. Same for lurker. You could wait couple more days, or at least fix bugs first and test some games in bug free version imho. 3. Its cool to have diversity. Marines are scaling well with upgrades and numbers. Are solid, all-purpose unit. They are ranged, shot up, can defend very well, make terran defence scale into late as well. I think making them weaker will force even more careful usage of them. Also in BW it was super important to protect your marines as they were your dps early game. Opponent had to snipe them, and terran had to block zealots/lings with scvs. Now scvs are as good tanks as marines. I agree that scv cooldown strenghtens bunker rush quite a bit, but its also investment. Maybe if OC would cost 150 then it would be enough nerf to bunker rushes? 4. Its cool to have units with huge potential, shining in good hands. I hope one day we will find good solution. 5 Well. Same as reaver. Would be cool to fix it one day.
Its cool to have diversity. Marines are scaling well with upgrades and numbers. Are solid, all-purpose unit. They are ranged, shot up, can defend very well, make terran defence scale into late as well. I think making them weaker will force even more careful usage of them. Also in BW it was super important to protect your marines as they were your dps early game. Opponent had to snipe them, and terran had to block zealots/lings with scvs. Now scvs are as good tanks as marines.
Good point. Protecting the marines with the SCVs with nice micro was a fun feature in BW. The problem here though is that Zerglings are so damn smart. They are fast as fuck and they auto-surround. Maybe its just me, but when Zerglings rushes vs my small group of marines and SCVs, I feel that their isnt that much I can do about it micro-wise to stop them from engaging my marines. I am not impossobile. Nerfing marine HP might be done, but not today ^^
Ps. Look at my edit in the post above.
Yea the Reaver & the Siege tank splash damage are not optimal now. I wished they would work as intended. Perhaps if more people gets attracted by this MOD, someday someone offers me the help to take care of these issues. Its probably not impossible, its just that neither I or the people I have contaced have been able to fix it.
SCVs life 60. Bunker BT increased from 45 to 55 seconds. Minor fixes
Ultralisks still starts with 10 armor.... Instead of figthing it I made them cost 300/300, have 400 HP and deal 20 dmg but no splash.. And they have 10 armor..
NA, you have an old & miserable patch! Don´t worry you'll get a new one soon!
EPT
Tell me when you guys are playing and hopefully I can hop on if Danko isn't playing. :D
