EPTI'll be around in the FRB channel in the evenings as much as possible searching for games, so if folks want to play or be cast that's a good time to meet up. Though again, I'm still looking for replays, so feel free to send any games to wiseoldsenex@gmail.com
[MOD] FRB - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
OldManSenex
United States130 Posts
I'll be around in the FRB channel in the evenings as much as possible searching for games, so if folks want to play or be cast that's a good time to meet up. Though again, I'm still looking for replays, so feel free to send any games to wiseoldsenex@gmail.com | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 10 2012 04:42 AmericanUmlaut wrote: A minor update: I've been playing around with the map editor all night. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't figure out a way to get gradually decreasing returns from workers after the first 8. I tried just jacking their movement speed to high heaven, but even that doesn't change how much they bounce; once you get to 16 workers, they quickly settle into perfect worker pairs, even though they're spending almost all of their time waiting for a mineral to be freed up. The other ideas I've had are preventing workers from waiting at occupied minerals and giving them a collision radius even when they're mining (removing the mineral walk ability so they get in each others' ways a bit as their numbers increase), but I can't figure out a way to do either of those things in the map editor. Mineral walking isn't something that's exposed in the editor, it's baked into CAbilHarvest. Blizzard would have to add the option into the editor for you to flag it on/off. Recreating the same effect exactly with your own custom abilities is possible but I wouldn't recommend it. If you want to make the 9th worker less useful than the first 8, extend time spent harvesting minerals and amount of minerals harvested to be slightly lengthier than the time it takes for a worker to make the round trip. That'll make a second SCV on a patch spend some time waiting. It will also make a 3rd worker per patch absolutely useless. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2597 Posts
On May 10 2012 23:52 urashimakt wrote: Mineral walking isn't something that's exposed in the editor, it's baked into CAbilHarvest. Blizzard would have to add the option into the editor for you to flag it on/off. Recreating the same effect exactly with your own custom abilities is possible but I wouldn't recommend it. If you want to make the 9th worker less useful than the first 8, extend time spent harvesting minerals and amount of minerals harvested to be slightly lengthier than the time it takes for a worker to make the round trip. That'll make a second SCV on a patch spend some time waiting. It will also make a 3rd worker per patch absolutely useless. The problem is that the goal isn't to simply reduce the number of workers required to reach 100% saturation. We had that with 6m, and I agree with Barrin's criticism of that ruleset. I'd like to have the the increased income per worker, from the 9th worker on, be somewhat less that the first eight, scaling down until you were getting a small but relatively insignificant additional income from workers after 16. So maybe the 9th worker gives you 95%, the 10th worker 94% and so on, then a cliff at 16 workers where you are only getting 50%, scaling quickly to almost zero additional income. That would create a situation in which a player on more mining bases than his opponent is rewarded, even at more than three mining bases, because his workers' mining efficiency would be increased. | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 11 2012 00:06 AmericanUmlaut wrote: The problem is that the goal isn't to simply reduce the number of workers required to reach 100% saturation. We had that with 6m, and I agree with Barrin's criticism of that ruleset. I'd like to have the the increased income per worker, from the 9th worker on, be somewhat less that the first eight, scaling down until you were getting a small but relatively insignificant additional income from workers after 16. So maybe the 9th worker gives you 95%, the 10th worker 94% and so on, then a cliff at 16 workers where you are only getting 50%, scaling quickly to almost zero additional income. That would create a situation in which a player on more mining bases than his opponent is rewarded, even at more than three mining bases, because his workers' mining efficiency would be increased. Well, you can't change the inner workings of the ability. The workers will always queue up like they queue up now. You might try giving a harvesting worker an aura that makes all other harvesting workers suck a little bit beyond the 8th. | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2597 Posts
On May 11 2012 00:30 urashimakt wrote: Well, you can't change the inner workings of the ability. The workers will always queue up like they queue up now. You might try giving a harvesting worker an aura that makes all other harvesting workers suck a little bit beyond the 8th. Purely hypothetically, what if you added a trigger that made a worker spin in circles for X time and then continue whatever it was doing if its coordinates are within Y of a friendly worker? I am completely new to the Galaxy editor, but something like that must surely be possible? | ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 11 2012 00:33 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Purely hypothetically, what if you added a trigger that made a worker spin in circles for X time and then continue whatever it was doing if its coordinates are within Y of a friendly worker? I am completely new to the Galaxy editor, but something like that must surely be possible? I threw together a trigger that simply orders a worker that draws too near to another harvesting worker to go somewhere else (and gives that worker temporary immunity to the same effect) and it works. However, on a single saturated base a bit of lag was noticeable and I imagine with multiple players or multiple bases a trigger firing that frequently and doing that much would be unbearable. I don't think triggering is the right avenue. | ||
|
ScoSteSal
United States54 Posts
| ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 11 2012 03:12 ScoSteSal wrote: What would be the problem with workers having an aura that adds a stacking debuff (movement speed and/or mining slow) to all workers within a certain (extremely small) distance of them? Just asking for clarification of why something mentioned earlier in the thread is not a viable solution. Someone might come up with a reason why that solution sucks, but I can point out it'd have to be a global time scale slow. If you only slow the movement, the workers spend a smaller percentage of their time actually mining which opens up more room for another worker to mine, essentially meaning you can overcome the detriment of the slow by adding enough workers. | ||
|
ScoSteSal
United States54 Posts
| ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 11 2012 03:55 ScoSteSal wrote: ok, what about the debuff being only on mining time, say, 5% stacking per worker's aura affecting the mining worker? Also, what is a global timescale slow? A global time scale slow affects everything the unit does. Imagine if you were playing in a Faster speed game but one of your units looked like it was on the Slower setting. And 5% is huge. That's 5% off every worker. I'd imagine if someone does try out an aura slow, it'd be much closer to 1% (maybe even lower). | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2597 Posts
| ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 11 2012 05:36 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Actually, a stacking speed debuff aura would create exactly the effect I'm looking for. It's true that you could overcome it by just adding more and more workers, but each worker would be slightly less effective, and you could increase the mining efficiency of a worker by moving it to a new base with fewer workers. How hard is it to create such an aura? Extremely simple. Are you sure you mean to be able to reach the maximum capacity by adding an absurd amount of harvesters? Saturating with 60 workers seems weird. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
urashimakt
United States1591 Posts
On May 11 2012 23:21 Gfire wrote: How do you add a stacking behavior that reduces mining speed? Is that possible? Here's how I'd do it. Behavior (Buff): Mining Worker: Max stack 1. Duration 0. Periodic effect: Search area and apply Mining Counter and Mining Slow. Behavior (Buff): Mining Counter: Max stack X. Max stack per caster 1. Duration slightly longer than the period of Mining Worker. The effect that applies it should be validated so it only applies to units with Mining Worker. The buff should be Remove validated so it's removed if Mining Worker is removed. Multiple Behaviors (Buff): Mining Slow X: Max stack 1. The effect that applies it should be validated so it only applies on targets with X Mining Counters. The buff should be Remove validated so it's removed if the Mining Counters aren't within the accepted range. You'll want a level of the buff for each stage of the slow. Set the slow values. If you want to slow just movement speed, that's Modification - Movement - Movement Speed Multiplier. If you want to slow just harvesting speed, that's Modification - Resources - Harvest Time Multiplier - Minerals. if you want to slow the entire unit, that's Modification - Unit - Time Scale. You'll also need: Trigger that applies Mining Worker when harvesting begins Trigger that removes Mining Worker when harvesting is interrupted Search effects Apply behavior effects Set effects Compare unit behavior count validators | ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
| ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On May 19 2012 00:09 Frozenhelfire wrote: I liked the 6m version of this mod a lot more. 8 mineral patches with 4 per trip brings back all of the problems I thought you/"we" were trying to avoid. With the 6m variation you had to expand to more than three bases to get optimal incomes. With 8m/4pt you reach your optimal income on three bases, it is just less income. Maybe i'm missing something, but this argument's been made for a while, and doesn't make any sense to me. It can't be the same income we're used to on 3 bases now, because it's not the same level of income. The income you get off three bases with this setup is broadly similar to the 6m setup, only bases don't saturate so quickly, and income is slower across the board. I know it's easier to wrap one's head around the 6m concept, since all it really does is lop 1/4 off the top, but thinking about it this doesn't seem like a valid argument against it. Not to say there's nothing wrong with it, but compared to 6m is definitely a step in the right direction. | ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
On May 19 2012 00:58 NewSunshine wrote: Maybe i'm missing something, but this argument's been made for a while, and doesn't make any sense to me. It can't be the same income we're used to on 3 bases now, because it's not the same level of income. The income you get off three bases with this setup is broadly similar to the 6m setup, only bases don't saturate so quickly, and income is slower across the board. I know it's easier to wrap one's head around the 6m concept, since all it really does is lop 1/4 off the top, but thinking about it this doesn't seem like a valid argument against it. Not to say there's nothing wrong with it, but compared to 6m is definitely a step in the right direction. The amount of workers it takes to saturate an 8 mineral base remains the same no matter how much you drop the income of the patch. Simply dropping the amount of minerals the trip gives you doesn't change the rate of expansion as much as manipulating the amount of workers it takes to saturate a base. If three bases was optimum before for a race it will still be the optimum now. I still want to play on the 8m/4pt before I bash it too much. However, my gut reaction is that I still like 6m more because it involved periods of time where you want to cut workers to get some army out or get an expansion started. 6m bases at least gave you more of a reason to expand. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20343 Posts
| ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
| ||
| ||
