EPTProject: Starcraft Improved - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 06 2015 21:59 RoomOfMush wrote: You have to change the "Race" data within the data editor. There are settings for starting workers and buildings for each race. The Race data is not Game data, its considered Advanced data. (or something like that) Ah, that's why I was not able to find it! Thank you! | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
Experimental branch
The early +14% and -14% late is probably the best fit of HMH income to Standard. Still, the early +14% can be problematic. That's a number very close to DH 3x3 that has been played in showmatches and 8-worker cheese may be a problem. I increase the theoretical efficiency from 75% to 76%. It is a small compensation for the mineral distance differences. I am performing real measurements now to confirm that the modified HMH curves match the theoretical predictions. Edit: To confirm - real tests have shown that the efficiency curve of the new version of the model matches the original HMH 5-4 almost ideally. The only difference is that the income is shifted up by 14.945%
Update: Moving the changes to Stable branch | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
When starting this project we were planning that after the big-scale changes (economy, micro mechanics) we would follow with small incremental changes. However, Protoss may require a broader look to make the race more interesting in play. The biggest issue - that we hope you agree with - is the Protoss gateway units. We feel that Protoss core gateway units are in an awkward spot:
Do we see it right, or is something missing? If we "attack" only one of the problems, we increase an imbalance in the other area. For example, if we buff zealots, 2 proxy will be that much stronger. If we reduce the strength of robo and air, Protoss may suddenly lack any solid unit and not be able to leave mid-game stage convincingly. We need multiple, coordinated changes at the same time, addressing all the above issues and not creating or strengthening other problems. Here is a set of changes that we currently have in mind:
With all the above, we hope to address all 3 indicated issues of the gateway units without making them underpowered or overpowered at any stage of the game. Do you think it will break something else that we didn't consider? Follow up direction, not directly related to the core problem:
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
First of all, the Mothership Core is a horrible unit, its practically a hero which does not belong in a game like Starcraft. Keeping it this way is a big no-go for me. Moving the Chronoboost to the Mothership Core is also problematic since it will make Chrono boosting very difficult. Your Mothership Core would need to stand close to your production and could not move out much. Chronoboost is such an important ability in the current balance that not having it would make Protoss a lot weaker. Buffing Stalkers is also very difficult because of Blink. We already saw that even with the cost inefficient Stalkers a Blink all-in can be devastating. This is mostly due to the high efficiency of Blink and the quick reinforcement through Warp Gates. You know what kind of changes I would like since you saw my own mod. I am just saying that what you have planned sounds like it will most likely not work out that well. Not saying its completely impossible, but it sounds dubious to me. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
I understand that buffing Stalkers may become problematic because of blink tactics. However, blink was intended to be a "side strategy", but it became a standard go-to in gateway-oriented builds, especially in PvZ. My current focus is on straightforward gateway-unit combat. Once this is set, we can look how blink is problematic, and how can it be fixed. Maybe a solution is to be found in other race's abilities? Going back in patch history, this is what happened:
if we are successful resolving the gateway army in straightforward battles - the root cause of this series of balance changes (although probably not the only) - maybe stim research time could be reduced a bit, allowing Terran to defend against blink all-ins more reliably? And that's only one way of many that the problem could be resolved... assuming it even appears! With a change in eco, change in chronoboost, change in supply cost of a stalker, early blink all-in may be simply less powerful. We don't know. We will need to test it. Right now what is most important is a straightforward combat, which should be the Standard. A luxury that Protoss simply doesn't have. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Right now the Stalker is a mobile ranged unit with fragile defense but okay offense. The Immortal is a beefy hard hitting ground unit. If you make the Stalker more beefy and slightly stronger then it will overlap too much with the Immortal in my opinion. Thats why I decided in Custom Craft to switch Immortal and Stalker in the tech tree. The Immortal feels much more like a massable T1.5 unit to me with the Stalker being a harassment focused / micro intensive unit. Concerning the MSC: I thought you didnt want to change things too much? You dont want to introduce new abilities, but you are okay with removing old ones? And trading abilities between units? And making a hero unit a non-hero unit and changing its purpose in the game? Dont you think you are going further then you originally intended to do? | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
I don't think that buffing Stalker will make it look like an Immortal. I don't want to double its HP or triple its damage output  A Stalker buff does not need to be directly related to HP either. I am currently thinking about removing its "Armored" and "vs Armored" flags and buffig flat damage a bit. We could also make the unit damage scale better with upgrades. However, I didn't investigate all consequences of this yet. Those are a few options out of many how Stalker could be buffed. Not every buff is towards Immortal-like. Swapping Immortal and Stalker is definitely clever. It is also what they did in OneGoal. I would prefer, however, not to make such tech tree swaps. When we exhaust all other options and find no good solution we will probably go this way - but I hope this is not going to happen. Regarding Mothership Core: What is the current purpose of the unit? I see it as a last-resort defensive unit: "omg we are surrounded! ... Recall. Omg we are under attack and have no units! ... Overcharge." I also see it as a "deathball attractor" as it is a heroic-like unit with powerful localized spells. There is no doubt that the unit requires some heavy tweaking. One of it is to remove the artificial one-unit cap. You can just do it or not do it. There is also an option that Pontius Prate points out: relating the MSC count to the number of Nexus. While softer, this is still some kind of artifical cap. Unless it is absolutely necessary I would like to avoid it. I am considering moving some of the abilities in the chain: Nexus -> Mothership Core -> Mothership. These units are directly related. This are the same abilities that no one has to learn what they do. As such it is less than coming up with completely new abilities. I do like yours "Restore Shields" ability. It's simple, straightforward, defensive and relies on the existence of other units. In the context of suggestions made here it makes MSC feel even more like a Queen. Note that OG also removes "Time Warp", introduces a Shield-related ability and make Overcharge more expensive to cast. So I would say we are all looking in the same direction. If we went crazy with ability swapping, I would actually advocate moving blink to DT or Adepts (for the LotV) making a Stalker a mobile, but core army rather than a harassment tool. But I think it would be too much in terms of swapping abilities. | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
As you take more expands, they become arguably harder and harder to defend (further from your main production facilities, and closer to your opponent's, and not supported by the same map features as a 2nd or a 3rd), and I think an extra main building + static defenses + 8 workers are a pretty high value of assets exposed on the map, for so little reward. Especially when you remember that you can just decide to mine with those 8 workers on a base that you already can defend. Imo, the only races that would benefit from the model are those which can expand uncontested in a matchup (only Z atm?), which is kind of one-sided. It's not like you can expand at will as T (even with bio) or P in the current version of the game, you already have a hard time holding on to your 3 first bases usually. A 5th or a 6th are just too easily caught off guard and one-shotted. I know you're planning a complete overhaul of SC2, so that expands may actually get easier to defend, but I was just wondering if lowering the main building cost was a possibility in your mind. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Where exactly do you want to draw the line here? What you propose for the MSC I would call some heavy tinkering. On the other hand, it sure isnt easy to clean up the blizzard mess called protoss. So what I would like to know is this: What exactly is the maximum extent to which you want to go with the re-purposing of units? You have to make that clear up front. Edit: @ZenithM You have to remember the new high ground advantage which makes defensive play easier. (expansions are usually on higher ground with a ramp leading up to it) I would also recommend giving each race some strong positional units that can hold the ground, like Siege Tanks, Lurkers, Reavers from BW. These units can be positioned at an expansion to defend it cost efficiently against much larger forces of enemies. At the same time these units are not imbalanced because they need to be set up to be used. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
Altering building prices is definetely possible although I am not convinced that it is required. Expansion benefits are hard to balance. Without enough benefit there is no point of expanding, with too high benefit it is dangereous not to expand - i.e. you become forced to expand. We need to find a spot where benefit is noticeable but not game changing. I believe HMH with 75% efficiency at 16 (bigger drop than in DH, mind that) is a high incentive itself to consider expand without being forced to. Note that "not being force to" implies - by definition - a possibility of 2base-vs-2base or 3base-vs-3base situations as well. In SCI we also introduced high ground advantage, giving you a chance to defend your territory by placing lesser forces at well chosen spots (ramps, cliffs overlooking passages, etc). While it is not an answer to any possible threat, we believe it should give you a little bit more chance to defend a higher count of bases. I also plan to have a look at harrasing capabilities of races. But that's a topic for another discussion... Back to the current discussion, I am wondering how do you feel about the current Protoss gateway army and what could be done to help it. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 08 2015 16:20 RoomOfMush wrote: So what I would like to know is this: What exactly is the maximum extent to which you want to go with the re-purposing of units? You have to make that clear up front. In one sentence: I want as little as it is necessary to achieve a desired effect. MSC is problematic so the extends steps much further away than - say - marines, or roaches which are probably where they should be. If there is a way to keep Chronoboost on Nexus - that would be great! So, for the purpose of the discussion, let us assume that we don't touch chronoboost. What else can we do to reduce proxy all-ins strength, especially in the view of some gateway buffs? I would also recommend giving each race some strong positional units that can hold the ground, like Siege Tanks, Lurkers, Reavers from BW. These units can be positioned at an expansion to defend it cost efficiently against much larger forces of enemies. At the same time these units are not imbalanced because they need to be set up to be used. That's in the plans, but we are not there yet. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Usually the proxy is only strong against a fast expand strategy. Since there is not yet any meta for your mod I would recommend not trying to fix it yet. First you have to see whether these fast zealots are actually that big of a problem in your mod. It might turn out that players of your mod will go for less greedy openings, wall off, scout better, etc. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
I agree however, that this is purely speculation. Maybe we should try as you suggest: ignore the problem, move forward, test it and then apply the changes only if the problem actually appears. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
What should the purpose of your MSC be? When do I build it and what do I use it for? Since you dont want it to be a hero unit it can not have its old purpose of the band aid emergency rescue. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 08 2015 20:33 RoomOfMush wrote: What should the purpose of your MSC be? When do I build it and what do I use it for? Since you dont want it to be a hero unit it can not have its old purpose of the band aid emergency rescue. My thought was a macro/defense queen-like flying unit, as described before. If we don't give it chronoboost, it would be just a defensive unit. It will still require some heavy changes on its abilities. We could also increase its cost so that it cannot be massed so easily, especially in early game. My main concern at the moment however are the gateway units throughout the game. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
What I did in Custom Craft is improve the harassment options for the Stalker by increasing the movement speed and the shields but lowering the hitpoints. I too removed the armored tag and changed the attack slightly. But increasing the movement speed of the Stalker in your mod would probably not be such a good idea since you want to keep the Stalker as a core army unit, right? For now you should probably try it with the armor change alone then and see how it plays out. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
I was considering replacing the attack 10 + 4 armored to 10 + 4light or even flat 14. However, I agree with you that doing smaller increments and seeing how it plays out is a better approach. Experimental Balance changes
I am trying to implement the ground-casted guardian shield, but it seems to be harder than I expected :/ Trying to create the actors and effects from scratch and just use the guardian model... but I get no animation and no desired effect. It's like walking in the dark through all that stuff  | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
| ||
| ||
