|
On August 27 2013 06:35 sjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2013 04:57 Phoobie wrote:
if I had a proposal for Warp Gates it would be to create two fields:
A Power field provided by pylons for teh warp-in of structures and a psionic matrix generated by non-pylon structers and the warp prism wherein units may be wapred in.
what are your thoughts on this? I like this idea, but I think maybe the "Psionic Matrix" (PM) should be only available in 3 places, in a decent range around the nexus, maybe comparable to Photon Overcharge range, the warp prism, but with a fairly limited range, and an upgraded pylon, with the upgrade being researched at TC, once again with a limited range, and no longer able to power buildings. As a side note, I think it would also be cool if the upgraded pylon had something like a really weak shield battery.
Thanks for the feedback! The only problem with those suggestions is that there is only one kind of psionic matrix, which allows for both buildings and warps... even if we had the assets to convey a second kind of matrix, this would start to get messy, design-wise, and is much less clean than the Warp Gate change we have in effect.
In HotS, the warp gate not only allows for near-instantaneous warp, but the cool-down for unit production is shorter than their normal build time by five or ten seconds. This means that the Warp Gate is a straight upgrade from the gateway no matter how you cut it. This removes the gateway as a viable production option.
However, our variation of the ability means that it's a good idea to use warp gates offensively from proxy pylons, but macro generally off of gateways (though warp gate macro is still an option, if you prefer; simply substandard). One or two warp gates is always a good idea, defensively speaking, and once you hit your population max, changing from gateways into warp gates is a great idea, because you can get a majority of an army back in 5 seconds, and the 10 extra seconds on the cool-down becomes irrelevant.
We really like this dynamic and actually having a choice between when to use one production method or the other, rather than it being your primary source of macro. That said, we've heard many other ideas, the most common being a warp field around the nexus, and we will keep an open mind for other implementations of the mechanic, so long as they will be simple and clean.
On August 27 2013 04:57 Phoobie wrote:
Thematically I feel as though Warp ins have become a core piece of the protoss identity. terran assembles their army piece by piece on an assembly line like a factory. Zerg spawns swarms of units from Larva, and protoss warps units to the battle field startegically and efficiently. At the same time I do feel as though warp gate can be detremental to design because of the ability to remove defender's advantage if you can sneak a pylon near their base whcih makes for a lot of all-in play and gimmiks which are fun for neigghther player.
I believe that we kept this feel of SC2 protoss macro (one of the few points of protoss identity that SC2 does best, unfortunately). The idea behind warps is that, as you said, they can warp in troops directly to the battlefield in strategic circumstances. With SC2 warps, though, it isn't particularly strategic; they are simply warped in, either in the base or somewhere directly outside of a battle.
The cooldown change that we've implemented means warp gate is a "side-grade"; under normal circumstances, the protoss are warped in to the desired gateway as per the norm, steadily building up a powerful force*. On the other hand, during battles, you have to be very careful about warps; a bad warp means that you lose not only the precious, expensive unit, but you also lose 10 seconds from your production que. Warped units become even more precious, and it makes it possible to scout that an attack or drop is coming, based on their ratio of warp gates to gateways (so managing your gateway and warp gate numbers becomes yet another layer of protoss play).
*I'd like to point out that this power is enabled by the fact that warp ins are actually slower. While force fields were one factor that made toss gateway weak, the other was that you could have an army wherever you wanted on the map with no downside. Our changes mean that getting an army out should be much more risky, but more rewarding due to simply more powerful units.
|
On August 26 2013 01:01 DoctorBoson wrote:
On a different note, I may be relocating my streaming days to Tuesday nights for now. Saturdays are very busy at the moment. Yes, starting this Tuesday. We're back :D
What time Tuesday? I'm in EST.
|
On August 27 2013 10:24 excomotive wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 01:01 DoctorBoson wrote:
On a different note, I may be relocating my streaming days to Tuesday nights for now. Saturdays are very busy at the moment. Yes, starting this Tuesday. We're back :D What time Tuesday? I'm in EST.
5:30 central, so 6:30 your time.
EDIT: Still can't time zone
|
On August 27 2013 03:47 Fishgle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2013 03:31 Bareleon wrote:On August 26 2013 03:23 DoctorBoson wrote:On August 26 2013 01:48 Bareleon wrote:
How do you get a new upgrade in a building and how do you make a unit use it after you upgrade it? In regards to the editor? Can you give an example? Yes. And like, giving a zealot stim or making a unit have a cloaking field. But like, after i research stim, how do I have to do it so the zlot can use it. You'll need to make the following things in the editor: The ability, the ability's effect, the upgrade requirements and validators, the upgrade, the ability that grants the upgrade, the button for the upgrade, the requirements for the ability (ie: have upgrade), the button for the ability on the unit, and then you'll need to place the buttons on their respective units and buildings. Your best bet is to open the editor and mess around with it for a couple hours. Look at the stuff already in the game and try to emulate it.
Ok thanks. I can try it, idk if I will succeed or not though lol.
|
|
|
I may not be an expert on game balance or design, but as a Protoss player who watched the stream I really missed seeing warp gates utilized as an upgrade rather than a side-grade. I agree with what Blizzard has said in that warp gates are and should remain the core of the Protoss ground army. It is a fun mechanic, and it really separates Protoss production from Zerg or Terran.
If it were up to me I would make warp gate cooldown times match gateway build times. When the build times are the same and the cost of warp gate is increased to 100/100 (as you have) then PvX matches can all use warp gate as a core mechanic while simultaneously reducing its all-in potential. In PvP matches players could choose to forgo warp gate and research the Shakuran Accelerator upgrade for a more defensive build or just research warp gate and be aggressive.
That's just my $0.02. Overall, I really like what you have done with the mod - especially the Sentry/Immortal and Roach/Hydra swaps.
|
the corrupter needs to be nerfed damage slightly and make the banelings untargetable so air ships target the corrupters
|
The patch is now live!
In addition to the changes that were mentioned in the notes on prior pages, a few more have been added:
- Corruptor Range decreased to 7 from 9
- Corruptor supply cost is increased to 4 from 3
Corruptors were a little bit too after good hitting the critical mass. With a large range and high damage, other air units had trouble being able to deal with masses of corruptors. This should make the unit more sparse, and make attacking a little bit more of a commitment.
- Hellbat damage decreased to 18.
- Infernal Pre-Igniter now adds +12 bonus damage vs light.
We are considering increasing hellbat health later on as well, if this seems to be too much without healing.
In addition to this, I am happy to announce that we're released the mod to the EU servers! Simply search OneGoal on the Arcade (at the time of this writing, I'm working on removing the old arcade version; in a couple days, the name should simply be OneGoal again, but until then it's OneGoal EU), or just OneGoal under Custom Games (which has all available maps, including the Unit Tester). There has also been a OneGoal group created in the EU, so you can find other players. We're super excited to include another continent in the fun, and wish you all the best!
|
On August 28 2013 07:22 DoctorBoson wrote:The stream is now LIVE!
Any VOD's?
|
Twitch deleted the most recent batch 
There will be another stream tomorrow, though, with the most recent patch. Sorry for the inconvenience. I'll make sure these are saved properly, this time.
|
Really like the Corruptor changes. Until Hellbats or mines are made to be significantly more powerful. Immortal heavy compositions are going to be pretty mean for pure mech.
|
I realize this is too late in the Design process for this Mod however did you guys consider removing some of the mechanics that contribute to the speed at which armies grow? Thus reducing the time for small battles to occur and thus games end with less battles and take less time on average, usually 1 or 2 Big battles. Crono Boost, Larvae Inject and Mules drastically speed up the game to an insane point, the removal of these mechanics specifically Could create a massive shift in how the game functions seeing as they are all so crucial to the design of the game right now in your mod and HOTS.
Cronoboost
-Probes (Economy)
-Upgrades (Major engagements happen earlier)
-Attacking Unit Production (Faster reinforce times and attacks hitting earlier)
Larvae Inject
-Drones (Economy)
-Re-Maxing instantly (less time in between battles for re-positioning and generally just a smashing together of huge armies)
-Massive game-play shifts drastically (from making 12 drones at once to making 20 roaches)
Mules
-Economy (Gets running much faster and requires less maintenance)
-More production off of less bases (3 Base issue)
-Armies ready to engage earlier With mass upgrades
All 3 help economy, thus production, thus upgrades and all off of less bases and this combined with the number of workers it requires to saturate one base (16 on Minerals 6 on Gas (22 Total)) the 3 base issue occurs simply because you start running of out supply because it takes so many workers to saturate 1 base and the number of bases needed to re-max is 3 (65-80 Workers Max).
What if the previous mechanics were removed or their influence drastically reduced e.g. Larvae Injects provide 2 Larvae instead of 4, Mules less efficient etc AND either the time that workers spend harvesting on the actual Minerals patch is increased to mean less workers per base instead of 16 on minerals how about 10-12 thus creating less income per base meaning you need more bases to reach that (3 Base Econ) so it becomes maybe a 5 Base Econ game instead. Meaning maps can be bigger and more spread out and that will mean having a death-ball becomes more and more of a negative thing to have which is where you guys shine on the unit design meaning that it becomes a good thing to split your army up rather than keep it all together in one spot.
---
--
-
I only write this because whilst I support wholeheartedly what you guys are doing and recognize that you don't want to be too drastic too early on because then its pointless to present to Blizzard your findings however Econ Design and Econ Boosters discussed above are one of the core problems along with the other issues you are currently tackling such as such as Death-balling and Hard/Soft Counters that contribute to not so enjoyable areas of this game to play or spectate.
Thoughts? ^^ :D
|
On September 03 2013 20:52 Razorspine wrote:
I realize this is too late in the Design process for this Mod however did you guys consider removing some of the mechanics that contribute to the speed at which armies grow? Thus reducing the time for small battles to occur and thus games end with less battles and take less time on average, usually 1 or 2 Big battles. Crono Boost, Larvae Inject and Mules drastically speed up the game to an insane point, the removal of these mechanics specifically Could create a massive shift in how the game functions seeing as they are all so crucial to the design of the game right now in your mod and HOTS.
Cronoboost
-Probes (Economy)
-Upgrades (Major engagements happen earlier)
-Attacking Unit Production (Faster reinforce times and attacks hitting earlier)
Larvae Inject
-Drones (Economy)
-Re-Maxing instantly (less time in between battles for re-positioning and generally just a smashing together of huge armies)
-Massive game-play shifts drastically (from making 12 drones at once to making 20 roaches)
Mules
-Economy (Gets running much faster and requires less maintenance)
-More production off of less bases (3 Base issue)
-Armies ready to engage earlier With mass upgrades
All 3 help economy, thus production, thus upgrades and all off of less bases and this combined with the number of workers it requires to saturate one base (16 on Minerals 6 on Gas (22 Total)) the 3 base issue occurs simply because you start running of out supply because it takes so many workers to saturate 1 base and the number of bases needed to re-max is 3 (65-80 Workers Max).
What if the previous mechanics were removed or their influence drastically reduced e.g. Larvae Injects provide 2 Larvae instead of 4, Mules less efficient etc AND either the time that workers spend harvesting on the actual Minerals patch is increased to mean less workers per base instead of 16 on minerals how about 10-12 thus creating less income per base meaning you need more bases to reach that (3 Base Econ) so it becomes maybe a 5 Base Econ game instead. Meaning maps can be bigger and more spread out and that will mean having a death-ball becomes more and more of a negative thing to have which is where you guys shine on the unit design meaning that it becomes a good thing to split your army up rather than keep it all together in one spot.
---
--
-
I only write this because whilst I support wholeheartedly what you guys are doing and recognize that you don't want to be too drastic too early on because then its pointless to present to Blizzard your findings however Econ Design and Econ Boosters discussed above are one of the core problems along with the other issues you are currently tackling such as such as Death-balling and Hard/Soft Counters that contribute to not so enjoyable areas of this game to play or spectate.
Thoughts? ^^ :D
You're looking to change the entire economic system of SC2. Even the smallest change in this area can have a major impact which may lead to major balance issues.
The mechanics offered to each race are good for the game for 2 major reasons; it helps diversify the races a little more but also, and more importantly, it increases the skill required to play the game optimally. Compared to Brood War where you had no multiple-building selection you had to go back to base, queue up production on each building then go back to controlling your units. In SC2 you could, with a few hotkeys, queue up production at home without ever looking away from your army, the macro mechanics force you to go back home and build up properly. For this reason I believe each race's mechanic should feel at least somewhat powerful, so that they are worthwhile to remember using.
Nerfing the macro mechanics of each race is more of a band-aid solution and would also would reduce the gap between players who use these mechanics perfectly compared to those who do not only to increase the time spent turtleing on 3 bases till max by a minute or two.
The bigger issue is resource gathering which are covered ion other threads such as Barrin's "Breath of gameplay" post. One Goal seeks to change as much as possible without touching resources. as this is the least likely thing blizzard will touch.
In terms of units; each race needs units that can effectiveley "Shark" around the map to establish control, threaten confrontation which will force players to dedicate more to early game and slow down the macro a bit. each race needs an efficient way to hold an area so that they can spread themselves thinner but also effective ways to break an entrenched position so that it's not the only option.
|
Once y'all are done balancing the units, I do think y'all could do a "One Goal Version 2" where y'all tinker with the resource side of things, perhaps going down to 6m, and then rebalancing the units. I think that would produce a far better game than SC2.
|
@razorspine
I don't know if you were around for Patch 3, but that was supposed to be the patch we "fixed" the macro mechanics. However, all it ended up doing was angering a large portion of our player base. We simply didn't know how the economy and macro mechanics interacted outside of theorycraft.
Don't worry, though; we're cooking up stuff for you behind the scenes, and it's going to be big. Our official announcement should be later this month.
EDIT: to go more in depth in response to your post:
On September 03 2013 20:52 Razorspine wrote:
Cronoboost
-Probes (Economy)
-Upgrades (Major engagements happen earlier)
-Attacking Unit Production (Faster reinforce times and attacks hitting earlier)
Chrono Boost is quite possibly the best macro mechanic out of the three due to its flexibility. You can focus it in on tech, economy, or military at the expense of the other two, requires good timing to execute (you can use a chrono boost at the right time to get 100% use out of it or 0% (supply block)), and back-to-base mechanics. We had planned to slightly alter it back in patch 3, but overall the ability is solid and should remain in the game.
Larvae Inject
-Drones (Economy)
-Re-Maxing instantly (less time in between battles for re-positioning and generally just a smashing together of huge armies)
-Massive game-play shifts drastically (from making 12 drones at once to making 20 roaches)
This one is a bit trickier... Injects are about as good as MULEs in terms of how the ability itself is executed, except easier (targeting a hatchery rather than mineral patches). However, with the introduction of the 1 supply hydralisk, larva efficiency of the zerg race decreases drastically: you need twice the larva to fill the supply that roaches once occupied. Back in Patch 3, we were planning on removing it spawn larva and giving the ability for the queen to spawn miniature larva colonies, which produce one or two larva at a time on their own, requiring constant attention to this ability and remaining aware of the space that you were using up. However, we simply didn't know the impact this would have (especially with low supply zerg) and attempted to implement it. The pre-patch beta showed that this was even more unstable than the changes we'd made to other races, was clunky, and didn't quite work.
Mules
-Economy (Gets running much faster and requires less maintenance)
-More production off of less bases (3 Base issue)
-Armies ready to engage earlier With mass upgrades
Oh, MULEs... Casting on minerals, SCV walk, and almost guaranteed high returns. If there's one mechanic that we wish we could flesh out, it would be this one. There's tons of ideas surrounding the implementation of MULEs, from giving a supply cost to making it simply calldown a pair of SCVs. We really don't know how we can make this work better while still keeping with the basic principle. We had considered changing the calldown supply ability on the command center to contextually either function as supply calldown, hi-sec auto tracking, or neosteel to give more diversity to Terran's OC spells and making other alternatives to the MULE, but we haven't implemented it yet, nor do we have immediate plans to do so. Economy is simply an area we aren't comfortable enough with to modify.
What if the previous mechanics were removed or their influence drastically reduced e.g. Larvae Injects provide 2 Larvae instead of 4, Mules less efficient etc AND either the time that workers spend harvesting on the actual Minerals patch is increased to mean less workers per base instead of 16 on minerals how about 10-12 thus creating less income per base meaning you need more bases to reach that (3 Base Econ) so it becomes maybe a 5 Base Econ game instead. Meaning maps can be bigger and more spread out and that will mean having a death-ball becomes more and more of a negative thing to have which is where you guys shine on the unit design meaning that it becomes a good thing to split your army up rather than keep it all together in one spot.
It could work, but we simply aren't sure about how to implement these changes; they will make sweeping changes to the entire game, many of which would be unforeseen. Look at what early game protoss changes have done to the protoss game: the earlier a mechanic that was changed comes into play, the more severe the repercussions it will have on the rest of any given match.
That isn't to say these changes are necessarily bad... they might be exactly what we're missing. We just aren't comfortable enough with changing it without having a better idea how the change might affect play.
Thank you for your feedback, and keep on gaming! :D
|
|
|
Thanks for your replies. ^^ I can definitely see how altering the Econ would upset a lot of people because it basically means that it was wrong from the inception of SCII and means undoing almost everything up to this point which would be a massive step backwards and no guarantee that it would be a step forward in the long run.
If I may... another question. I haven't been able to find too many people to play with (Probably a time zone thing (originally from SEA server)) but does OG still have a 3Base feel to it or have the changes you've made had some progress in this area or is this a part of this big announcement you are going to make?
Thanks! :D
|
really like what you've done here
|
Hi guys.
I also really like what you've done here.
I have one criticism/idea to the colossus.
The colossus does not have many disadvantages with respect to its counter units.
I want to show good unit design using the example of the Reavers and to reveal some opportunities that are available for the Colossus.
Reaver:
The Reaver is not above the units like the Colossus. Therefore the Reaver has to stand on the edge of an army and you can attack and outplay him better.
The Reaver has a long cooldown, so you can attack the Reaver between his shots.
Each shot costs minerals.
The scarabs follow the target, whereby the player has time to react to it.
The Colossus doesn't have many of these disadvantages.
The disadvantage to be attacked by AA-units is not enough.
Therefore you can hardly react with micro against Colossus.
The linear attack makes the micro even less possible.
Because of that you should change the Colossus.
Now I describe one of many possible ideas to achieve that.
To keep the feeling of the Colossus, and not to take away his uniqueness, we can not change many things.
However, there are a few things we can change.
Colossus:
AOE damage changed from a linear area to a circular area with a 1.0 radius. (optional - The change is better for a clear animation of the new effect.) [New effect: Both beams centered on one point for 4 seconds.]
The Colossus deals 96 damage over 4 seconds in 8 steps.
The area under the targeted unit is the targeted area for these 4 seconds.
The Colossus deals 96 damage over 4 seconds and then it can´t attack for 4 seconds.
So the attack and the phase it can't attack last 8 seconds. (Cooldown is 8 seconds.)
I think the damage over time and the long cooldown offers enough disadvantages and you can better micro against Colossus. Due to the small radius you have more space for micro on both sides.
I hope you can understand me? My english is not good. ^^
I don't want change the Colossus to the Reaver. I only want to show the many disadvantages of a Reaver compared to the few disadvantages of the Colossus to promote the development of better units.
What do you think about this idea?
|
Hello
I was watching an "imba" video with units dealing half damage, and it was really interesting to see more battles, taking more space, with reinforcements mattering more. Okay maybe half is a bit much, but a reduction in damage across the board (think broodwar. Killing stuff was a lot slower) could be good for the game.
We had considered changing the calldown supply ability on the command center to contextually either function as supply calldown, hi-sec auto tracking, or neosteel to give more diversity to Terran's OC spells and making other alternatives to the MULE, but we haven't implemented it yet, nor do we have immediate plans to do so. Economy is simply an area we aren't comfortable enough with to modify.
I like the idea. Not touching the economic balance directly, but adding options you may want to consider instead of using mules.
Also, mules are too forgiving compared to inject. If you miss an inject, you lost the larvas that could have been created. If you miss a mule, you just call it a bit later. Since you can have more than one active by CC, it's not a problem. By the way, may be a solution to limit mules to 1/orbital.
Another funny idea would be to bring back the comm station, and have mules, scan and call down SCV be done from something a lot easier to destroy and unable to fly (working only if CC attached, not working with PF) to give some vulnerability (and make sitting on energy risked late game as killing it would mean loosing the energy).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
