EPTI think it's better to work with the BC being slow and do something in this spirit than change it too much. T3 units are mostly slow (should do something about colossus concerning this, I think), because it allows playing around them.
OneGoal: A better SC2 [Project Hub] - Page 21
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Nyvis
France284 Posts
I think it's better to work with the BC being slow and do something in this spirit than change it too much. T3 units are mostly slow (should do something about colossus concerning this, I think), because it allows playing around them. | ||
|
acrimoneyius
United States983 Posts
| ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
| ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
| ||
|
haitike
Spain2714 Posts
On January 06 2013 11:28 ItWhoSpeaks wrote: Support us and Blizzard by playing and giving us feedback. If you are on EU, worry not, we hope to release it with Design Patch 1 in the very near future! I will test and give feedback fast when you publish in Europe! | ||
|
MNdakota
United States512 Posts
 http://www.twitch.tv/mndakota | ||
|
abei1234
United States89 Posts
So my idea is that the legs part + the mine part should be able to be separated and recombined. Widow Mines being 1 supply seems kinda OP but I understand why you would like to see such a change. Since theres 2 parts to the Widow mine: the mine itself, and the legs it makes sense that the blizzard version is 2 supply. My idea is they can be separated, so the mine part will be 1 supply, and remain burrowed stationary inside the ground forever - until killed. For example, there can be 2 hotkeys on the mine = burrow forever, or temporary burrow to allow them to be re-deployed as per normal. "Burrow Forever" would destroy the legs and reduce the supply per mine to 1. There can be a few more ideas expanded onto this line of thinking if you desire. Such as actually allowing the factory itself to produce the 1 supply mines itself, and the 1 supply legs itself as seperate items. Then you can keep a few "legs" in your base and when you want to move a "burrowed forever" mine you can bring the legs from your base, re-attach it to the mine, and move it (of course the name Burrow Forever would then have to be modified). | ||
|
Infested__Marine
United States29 Posts
(--Deals an additional X damage to shields and Drains X amount of energy on impact--) . This will make them more viable late game while given the option of things like an overpower 1-1-1. | ||
|
KamikazeDurrrp
United States95 Posts
On January 08 2013 03:34 Infested__Marine wrote: I suggested this in another thread, but I think siege-tanks should have an "electromagnetic rounds" upgrade (--Deals an additional X damage to shields and Drains X amount of energy on impact--) . This will make them more viable late game while given the option of things like an overpower 1-1-1. I always facepalm when I see suggestions like these. I think we've had too much of the moba culture and "terrible terrible" design philosophy slip into our view of starcraft. Look, I like Dota and the like, but having things like these in the game only serves to further complicate, pidgeonhole, and take away from what SC is supposed to be about. So just because terran mech is struggling against protoss, then we have to give tanks a weapon that ONLY counters protoss lategame (and maybe infestors)? See the logic that goes behind this kind of thinking? How about instead of giving tanks a broken, complete counter against protoss ground, we fix the broken, complete counters that protoss have against mech? Like: immortal, colossus, tempest, feedback, etc. etc.? | ||
|
Zrana
United Kingdom698 Posts
| ||
|
KamikazeDurrrp
United States95 Posts
On January 08 2013 05:54 Zrana wrote: I'm not convinced the BC needs changing at all; isn't it interesting enough as a very-late-game short range high armour quick firing unit as it is? The BC isn't weak, the problem with the BC is with HOTS coming out with more ridiculous easy counters to the BC and the apparent "boring" way the BC is used people in this forum have tried suggest ways to make the BC more "interesting" and better to use. I agree with you in the fact that it's not the BC that really needs changing, those ridiculous counters to the BC just have to be removed from the game, and I have suggested that we need better ways to support the BC as a way to make BCs interesting, not changing the BC. Just as a sidenote, what if a unit with defensive matrix (add a large amount of HP for a certain amount of time) was added for terran? I think that would do a lot to fix the current problems that terran seems to have against the other races. I want to know what others think. | ||
|
ItWhoSpeaks
United States362 Posts
Behemoth Conduit exists to allow BCs in low numbers to make a difference. We aren't super thrilled with it, and we are keeping our eyes on what you guys come up with. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On paper it is immensely powerful but it literally has too many counters. Templars counter it. Mass air counters it. Heavy armour counters it. Long ranged units counter it. Meanwhile what does it counter? Marines. That's about it. Yes, 9 battlecruisers sitting above 30 zealots will vapourise them but how long did it take those 9 BCs to come out? How much gas was invested? Can the BC in any way protect other units? Is it a priority target? No. Most other units can quite easily outrun it or move somewhere else. The standard response to 5 BCs turning up in your base unannounced is to go kill said BCs and congratulate yourself because you basically just took 30 supply out of the game and it ain't back for a good 90s. BCs need a real threat, a real role and something that they can specialise in. Being a big dumb catch all unit is neither interesting nor is it ever going to be balanced. If it is ever powerful enough to justify its role, you will make 9 of them and a move without counter. If it has an obvious weakness despite its power, said obvious weakness will invariably be exploited because they take so long to build. The argument I am trying to make is that such a unit does not have a definitive role to follow. It is fine that it is a high DPS, high armour unit that is hard to kill. However that does not make a unit interesting. That just makes a unit powerful. Making a unit interesting is much harder and requires a lot more thought. Terran does not need any more micromanagement adding to it, by the way. We already have far too much to keep track of. Anything you do to the capital ships should expand on their role through position or composition NOT through babysitting them with other units. | ||
|
Zrana
United Kingdom698 Posts
1. Add a weaker version of scan (smaller radius shorter duration) - synergises with T lategame mule spam, allows for better yamato hits, EMPs, tank spotting, army positioning, nukes etc. This gives the role of a battlefield commander to the BC, something i think fits quite well with the feel of the unit. Even though it moves slowly it still has map control. Seems pretty badass. Variations on the idea would be just a massive sight radius, or basically make it a shorter radius mobile sensor tower with guns. 2. Increase it's speed. They were slow in BW because anti-air was ground-based; better design but blizzard made AtA stronger in sc2 (imo just for the sake of being different) so no reason why it shouldn't be speedy. Battlecruiser harrass anyone? Maybe even bonus damage vs buildings...? (no probably not) This allows BCs to keep up with bio forces and be the extendable arm of a mech army. Variations on the idea could be giving units around the BC a speed bonus, again it's in keeping with a battlefield commander role but it might screw balance a bit much. This is pretty similar to Behemoth Conduit but it removes the weakness to HTs or ghosts which could really wreck your day. 3. Passive aura: Increases the energy recharge rate of nearby friendly units, does not stack. Basically a slight buff to any Ravens, Ghosts, Medivacs or other BCs (assuming Yamato Cannon is still in). This just makes there be a reason to have at least 1 or 2 around your army, whether it's mech or bio or sky. | ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=390265 Looking at SC2 as a whole, SC2 economy and production mechanics are the biggest problems going on with the game, even if you left all of the units as is. -why not let the mutalisk actually mutate into the corruptor/broodlord like its name suggests? -Mass hydralisks at 1 food each, infinite selection, and being clumped is funny -bug: if a viper tries to abduct a corruptor morphing into a broodlord, the morping freezes and neither the viper nor the egg can take any commands, even cancel. | ||
|
Bayyne
United States1967 Posts
On January 08 2013 09:41 purakushi wrote: I do like OneGoal way more than SC2, but what exactly has it done for the fact that it is just so easy to max out in SC2? I do not think tweaking/redesigning units helps this at all. There is still a lot of downtime in games compared to BW. People still max out before they really move out, and then battles are just a cluster-fudge of units smashing together. While some micro is possible and it may look flashy and cool, armies still evapourate way too quickly to allow players to really showcase their abilities both in the macro and micro departments. While I know you have mentioned it but want to hold off on it, I really feel like the only way to address these big issues is to completely change the economic system of SC2. While you probably have seen it, a good post on this is here (scroll down to economy). Also, the part about production mechanics should be addressed, too: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=390265 Looking at SC2 as a whole, SC2 economy and production mechanics are the biggest problems going on with the game, even if you left all of the units as is. -why not let the mutalisk actually mutate into the corruptor/broodlord like its name suggests? -Mass hydralisks at 1 food each, infinite selection, and being clumped is funny I've been thinking the EXACT same thing for a very long time, and recently have begun adventuring around with the SC2 Map Editor. The premise I've been working from is as follows: 1. Remove each race's macro mechanic (chronoboost, queen, mule/calldown supply) 2. Remove each race's super-charged production capabilities (reactors, larva inject [queen removal], chronoboost [warpgate removal]) 3. Reduce global burst damage and movement speed to promote more positional play. Now all I have to do is get over the "easier said than done" phase and actually find a workable balance of values and tweaks to not only create a pacing and speed and overall game that I enjoy, but one that others might enjoy as well. And yes, I do agree with you regarding the economy and production. The game does feel like it's on steroids, which creates a game that lacks true strategic depth. There have been suggestions to fix this, such as the reduced amount of mineral nodes per base. However, I don't think that's enough. I believe tweaking the mineral harvest rate (default to 5) and harvest time (default to 2.7ish) should be done. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
On January 06 2013 03:23 KamikazeDurrrp wrote: I think you misunderstand me when I talked about how "easy" BC were. I didn't mean you earned "microless" units if you reached that level of tech, I meant that mechanically, the high tech capital air units were much easier comparatively than most of the other units. High tech units are still hard to use, like what you mentioned about Ultralisks. But my argument was that it was okay that units like BC were "easy" mechanically because most of the mechanics came from defending them and keeping them alive. The whole point of tanky, high dps units is that the longer they are alive, the more damage that they do. This is different when you have an army of, say, marines where gradually your dps gets lower and lower as you lose more marines, which is unavoidable during a fight. Due to the tanky nature of the capital air ship, they can take a lot of damage but NOT lose the dps, so your goal is do as much damage as possible decreasing the dps of your opponent’s army, while keeping your dps as high as possible. However, the reason the BC was given something like Yamato is that it is such a big and slow moving target that it's easy to pick them off, especially considering the range of the BC is subpar. Yamato was a way to "even the odds" and do large amounts of burst damage so that when the BC got it range it could have an edge in finishing off the opponent's army. This is different from the Carrier because the Carrier has much longer range than the BC, so it can keep the opponent at bay while still doing dps, so the developers made it so that the carrier was dependent on the interceptor not only to make it "look cool" but give the opponent an ability to neutralize the dps of the carrier if they couldn't neutralize the carrier. This is the reason I call these types of units "seigebreakers" is because that they give you a powerful tool in your arsenal to turn around any fight, and were especially useful in giving you an edge in a turtling or divided map scenario. This is why I sort of dislike giving BC and other high tech units of the like such powerful and diverse abilities, because it sort of detracts from their original purpose: to get in a fight, survive and do a lot of damage. I'd rather favor more subtle ways to improve units like the BC, sort of like the famous carrier micro thread and the moving shot. Even the BC speed boost blizzard added is a better way to improve the BC (though I’m worried how much utility the BC has with a speed boost). From what I’ve seen from Dota 2, I don’t think there’s ever a way to make any tanky high dps unit look “mechanically interesting” (to the spectator at least) without totally going over the top with gimmicky abilities and overpowered spells. I mean, just look at blizzard did with the ultralisk in HOTS. In order to make ultras more interesting, they gave the ultras a “burrow strike” to close in on the opponent. If nobody really considers that broken I don’t know what else to say. The mechanics for units such as the BC should just come from army engagement, getting to and supporting BCs, that’s enough to separate the pros from everyone else. Im not 100% sure i fully understand your POV, but I assume it's something like this: 1) Tier 3 units should work differently from core units. 2) Tier 3 units micro should be about keeping them alive, which should be difficult to do. 3) BC has a low range and is countered by a lot of units into a fight, so it is given a yamato cannon so one can say that the full package (the a move capital ship and the yamato cannon) is worth to pay 400/300 for. 4) The BC is supposed to be a siegebreaking unit, which means that it is a unit that makes it possibly to attack with rather than a unit which increases defenders advantage. If that's your arguments im not sure I completely agree. First of all, do you agree with me that the current BC isn't exactly difficult to use optimally (the easy to learn easy to master concept applies here)?. if that's the case would you support a reworked bc ability which gave BC's the same siegebreaker role yet it was more difficult to use efficiently than the current yamato cannon? Or would you rather favor the current yamato cannon + some kind of moving shot ability? Secondly it seems to me that you want the BC to have an attacking role than be a more defensive unit; you argue that it is intended role? Why is that? Why does this unit have to be a unit that can deal damage efficiently while attacking? Does not neccesarily make for more entertaining games ? Personally, I think any unit role should be up for discussion, and should be decided upon which kind of gameplay we want. Therefore I think it's somewhat irrelevant that the BC previously was a good "siegebreaker unit", if the game would be more entertaining by designing it as a "defender-unit". If the BC worked better as a siegebreaking unit, sure then I would be fine by possibly keeping the current yamato but making the capital ship it self tougher to use optimally. But I would like to hear some arguments for why that should be the case. On January 06 2013 05:32 Evangelist wrote: A buff to the BC is what is required. There's no point in not buffing it because every single comparable unit is getting buffed and more direct counters are being added to the game. Don't look at this from the perspective of the metagame produced by this thread. Blizzard are never going to iterate as many things as this in one patch, not even for an expansion. Battlecruisers need a role and they lack one right now. Their special ability overlaps with Ravens. They are greatly outranged by Protoss air and extraordinarily expensive so can be overrun by zerg. Battlecruisers need a big, big buff to make them work as viable T3 units. As it is, they don't. I think Onegoal kept the original seeker missile (?), which btw is a ton more awesome than the current seeker missile (which shouldn't come as a surprise as it is basically the same as the current yamato cannon). Anyway your idea about siege-BC seems very interesting, and various versions of that idea should probably be tested We must remember though that when designing a siege-unit that it needs to work in the same way as the siege tanks does. What do I mean by that? Well the siege tank in it self isn't actually that interesting. Some could argue that sieging tanks up at the right time is an art and interesting to read, but most spectators do not find that very entertaining, and most siege timing decisions are actually very trivial. Instead, the great thing about the siege tank is the way it incentivizes the opponent to multitask the crap out of the terran player. The BC should have the same effect; say the BC is a kind of anti air siege unit. Now it should force the toss (assuming he went air heavy) to abuse the immobility of the terran. But how is that even possibly with the carrier/tempest (hint: its not). So I think in order for the siege BC to be entertaining tvp toss air actually needs to mobile (one possible solution is to make tempest a more mobile unit rather than a long range unit, instead the carrier is the long range unit with its moving attack). In order for the siege BC to be entertaining tvz, the corrupter should probably be given a larger role aside from countering other air units. This means that someone could actually go for the broodlord/corrupter combination and use corrupters to abuse the immobility of the antiair BC (assuming some creative redesign to the corrupter). The terrans should respond by positioning his BC very intelligently and predict the likely response of the zerg player. So by giving the BC this kind of role, it would require further changes to other protoss and zerg units for the game to be interesting. So unless the developers of Onegoal are interested in redesigning units such as corrupter/tempest and or void ray (again) this won't work. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
| ||
|
Parcelleus
Australia1662 Posts
They are already weak, please explain the logic behind this. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9396 Posts
On January 08 2013 10:58 Parcelleus wrote: Making gateway units weaker ? ie. stalker They are already weak, please explain the logic behind this. Please read the initial posts. | ||
| ||
