EPTProject: Starcraft Improved - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
| ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
I made the effect as an example for you in the attached map. I actually made the effect a little bit more visual (+5 armor + 100 shields) to see that it actually works. The values (like duration, etc) are probably not correct. I based it off of time warp. Link to download the example map: http://www.file-upload.net/download-10751012/GuardianShield-Point.SC2Map.html | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 09 2015 04:12 404AlphaSquad wrote: Is there a group/channel where people meet and play? There is an "SC Improved" group available in EU region, but no members apart from me at the moment. The mod is still an infant. Thank you for your help, RoomOfMush. I will look into your solution tomorrow. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
I still have problems with it... sigh.... merging stuff from your map into my mod. I managed to copy-paste all the changes in the raw XML view, but not everything is in XML view - e.g. the default key is missing. It is so tedious to copy stuff between files... I think I will just clean it up myself, manually. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
The only problem for me is that I am on a slightly outdated computer and the editor is constantly lagging for me. It sometimes takes several seconds to load certain pages. And starting SC2 to test things can take 2 minutes... | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
How do you feel about a Stalker damage change from "10 (14 vs Armored)" to "13"? Notable interaction changes:
This makes all-around bit better unit rather than AV specialist - which is a strange trait for a Stalker. It is closer to be cost-efficient. However, with the supply cost increase it is harder to mass and a bit more expensive in early game (need more pylons). It also buffs Protoss AA against Mutalisks by a noticeable amount - something that this race is struggling with + it aligns with a future policy of making Ground-to-Air stronger in exchange of weaker Air-to-Air. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
 In the meantime I created SC Improved groups and made some images. Is there a way to set up a custom loading screen for a mod? All I can find on the internet is how to do that for a map... | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 12 2015 08:57 Pontius Pirate wrote: Do you think it's at all viable to change Stalker supply cost to 2.5? That would set up a precedent to allow changing Siege Tanks to 2.5, and possibly Roaches to 1.5. Apart from the obvious inconvenience of having a hidden 0.5 there is no reason why shouldn't it happen. We could also multiply the supply cost of all units by 2 or 3 and increase the supply-cap accordingly. It is an interesting idea, so I added it on the top of TODO list. For a Stalker in particular, however, I fear that 2.5 might not be impactful enough. This functions not only to bring cost-effectiveness closer to supply-effectiveness, but also it functions as a nerf to early blink-stalker all-ins as well as a nerf to deathball play. Regarding other changes - if there are no other comments, I will be closing this topic soon. If I get no "yes" for the proposed Stalker change (13 flat damage) or any other suggestion around it, I will just keep the standard values and go with RoomOfMush's suggestion to just see how it playes. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
It is something I always disliked about SC2, how they made most units more costly in the supply area. Siege Tanks, Hydras, Ultras suddenly cost more supply, Banshees, Thors, etc cost more supply then their BW originals. In my opinion high supply cost units make it so that players are less likely to station some units defensively at their bases. Because now it would be more supply, and therefore possible army units, wasted on the back lines. If you instead keep the supply cost per unit low but increase the units cost then it will still be build less but each individual unit will be more valueable, defensive units will become better and the late game armies will become stronger. ------------------------------------------ The 13 flat damage sounds okay. Its hard to really tell, it would have to be played by higher level players to really judge it fairly. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/489939-a-protoss-redesign-proposal Maybe these can be useful to you. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
The problem you describe can be adjusted by individual unit supply cost, but also by changing the supply maximum or overall, uniform scaling of all supply costs. By changing the stalker cost I attack a completely different problem: disparity between unit cost and supply cost. It is a different problem, which can lead to unwanted effects. Let's step away from Stalker and do some theorycrafing with an arbitrary unit X. Let consider 3 variants of that unit:
Let us further assume that you can exchange 100 minerals for an 8 supply budget. Consider 3 races, each having access to only one of the variants of X. In early game the limiting factor is money. You need to create Supply and Army while having limited income.
In this scenario HX can play aggressively early-game and do some serious damage to RX. Things change in the late game. Money is no longer the prime factor, but the supply cap.
The above reasoning was purely theoretical. Numbers are extreme and in real game there are (fortunately) so many other factors (e.g. unit size, usability in big numbers, ability to shoot air, special abilities, attributes and counters, etc...) However, this underlying theory can still shine through all that additional stuff and I believe this is the case with Protoss in general: in early game sentryless Protoss has survavibility problems, but if it manages to hit the late game, chances for Protoss win are usually higher than of any other race. This matches the profile of Rich X. Secondly, we identified that Stalker is more supply-efficient than cost-efficient. In SCI, so far, Stalker received bufs only:
For the reasons stated earlier I claim that if we want to reflect the bufs somehow in the unit price, it should be done through its supply cost rather than the price. Thus I came with the conclusion that "2->3" is the way to go. Giving it more thought though I am not 100% convinced. As you point out, it limits the number of mobile units available to Protoss player, potentially encouraging more deathball-style play. Maybe in the end the 2.5 as suggested by Pontius Pirate would be a good compromise? Thanks for the link. Frankly, I missed that thread, I will have a good read! | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
It simply is a different kind of design that differentiates protoss from the other races. Of course, extremes are always bad, thats why they are called extremes, but I dont think we have reached an extreme yet. Even though your Stalker has received quite a few buffs, none of them were of grand effect. The lower Damage Point doesnt change late game engagements, only early game micro intensive battles. The removed armored flag makes the Stalker stronger against certain kinds of units, but not against others. And the changed damage output also makes the Stalker weaker against certain targets. As you see, whether the unit really got stronger or not depends heavily on the situation it is used in. Overall it might have become more useful and more powerful in most situations, but I dont think the buff was so powerful that a supply cost increase of 50% or 25% is fair. I would suggest, instead of making the Stalker weaker / more costly to counter-balance the buff, make a change to the Sentry and Force Field or MSC to balance things out. On their own, Stalkers were fairly weak before. They only shine when used in combination with Force Fields or the MSC to grant high ground vision in an early all-in. Weakening these compositions instead of individual units might be a better route. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
| ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
On July 12 2015 18:30 RoomOfMush wrote: I dont particulary like the supply increase of the stalker. Higher supply units mean less units in total which means less engagements, harass, defensive units, etc. It is something I always disliked about SC2, how they made most units more costly in the supply area. Siege Tanks, Hydras, Ultras suddenly cost more supply, Banshees, Thors, etc cost more supply then their BW originals. In my opinion high supply cost units make it so that players are less likely to station some units defensively at their bases. Because now it would be more supply, and therefore possible army units, wasted on the back lines. If you instead keep the supply cost per unit low but increase the units cost then it will still be build less but each individual unit will be more valueable, defensive units will become better and the late game armies will become stronger. ------------------------------------------ The 13 flat damage sounds okay. Its hard to really tell, it would have to be played by higher level players to really judge it fairly. I'm all for supply increases to specific units who seem like they might need them, so long as it's coupled with a total supply cap increase. For instance, I'm okay with the Roach (in its current state) being at 2 supply if the maximum supply is 300. I get the sense that the improved performance of Roaches against Stalkers with this theoretical 13 flat damage shot will have to be compensated by greater access to anti-armor for the Protoss player. Is this an alright time to bring up moving the Immortal to the Gateway? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 13 2015 02:49 RoomOfMush wrote: What you describe is true and well known, but you fail to describe why it would be a bad thing to have a "rich" unit as you call it. It simply is a different kind of design that differentiates protoss from the other races. Of course, extremes are always bad, thats why they are called extremes, but I dont think we have reached an extreme yet. While not an extreme, many say that Protoss as an advantage once a late game is reached. I don't think it is a good thing, it puts other races on a clock. While having timings and different win changes depending on game duration is not necessairly bad, but everything should converge to 50% in the late late game. Protoss is designed to have fewer, but beefier units. This can be achieved without the "rich" property - simply the cost and supply have to be proportional to what the unit can do. However, with all the arguments presented and my own thoughts, I think it will be better to revert Stalker supply to 2 and not apply a damange change - at least for the moment. Experimental Branch
Stable Branch Experimental Branch pushed to Stable branch. This includes the following changes:
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
Warpgate decreases the defender benefit. This is particularly visible in PvP. We are looking for ways to make a Warpgate a choice rather than a must-have, at least in the early-to-mid stages of the game. One of the most common suggestion is to have warpgate have an additional cooldown cost when spawning units, rather than having it decreased. In our view it becomes merely a small inconvenience rather than a solution. Unless, of course, the difference is huge - but we don't wan that either. You still want to warp in units at the field rather than wait for full cycle to produce from the base and then spend valuable time to move. Warpgates still decrease the defender's advantage. You still get a round of units a cycle earlier, compared to a non-Warpgating Protoss and only after few cycles of constant production the higher cooldown starts to matter. Ball656 in the other thread proposes a different solution: make a gateway-to-warpgate transformation cost money - say 100 minerals. In early game this is an important investment which effectively reduces your army strength by a Zealot per each Gateway. This gives a tangible difference between a potential Warpgate aggressor and a Nonwarpgate defender. While Warpgate remains a "must-have" at a later stage of the game, it would not necessarily be a must-rush-to technology early game. It might even open us a possibility to change the role of Mothership Core in the future, without reverting PvP to WoL state, which revolved heavily around 4-warpgating. For reference, the original Ball656 post: On July 13 2015 02:31 Ball656 wrote: There's a legitimate worry about the power of warpgate if you increase the stats on gateway units. Not only can a warp in occur anywhere with a pylon or deployed warp prism, it also gives you the unit around thirty seconds earlier than traditional production. This is why the timing of warp gate research finishing could decide games in WoL PvP (3 or 5 stalkers vs 7 is very tough). Some have suggested changing warpgates to be less efficient at making units than gateways, but I think there might be a simpler way to take the edge off of early warpgate aggression while still allowing the gateway units themselves to be more powerful. And that is: make transforming each gateway to warpgate cost the minerals and build time of a zealot. A warpgate is more useful than a gateway, so it makes sense that it would cost more. Since it gives you the units it produces almost a production cycle early, and with more flexibility with regard to location, it makes sense that this additional cost would match up with the cost of one unit. An 8 gate that has to spend 800 extra minerals transforming its gateways to warp gates would be much less powerful, but still a bit better than an 8 gate that declines to transform its gateways, spends the time waiting for its units to finish and then walks across the map (or arrives at the same time with 8 less units). Such a change also delays the Protoss maxing out and makes the maxed out bank smaller at any particular point in time just by nature of being extra infrastructure cost, so the power of remaxing with zealots and stalkers as compared to units which must wait their full build time to be produced is indirectly addressed. Since it's the warp gate itself that enables most of the strongest independent applications of gateway units it makes sense that it would be the warp gate that would have additional cost rather than zealots and stalkers suffering a tax on their effectiveness in all situations. There might even be room to experiment with bringing back the WoL alpha's 2 gate proxy pylon with warp gates able to be placed on the map without research for 250 minerals and a build time of 95 seconds. That might demand a shift to very aggressive openings in PvP, though, just to be safe from a proxy pylon. | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
On July 13 2015 18:37 BlackLilium wrote: However, with all the arguments presented and my own thoughts, I think it will be better to revert Stalker supply to 2 and not apply a damange change - at least for the moment. What was the logic behind the idea to put the Stalker at 13 flat damage instead of 14 flat damage? I feel like this Stalker supply change is an idea that deserves further consideration, especially if other supply changes start getting made. On a related note, I see the difference between 11 flat and 12 flat damage to be the biggest difference-maker, since that's when Stalkers 3-shot Zerglings. Also, was your plan to keep the upgrade scaling at +1, or were you thinking of moving it to +2? In relation to Warp Gates, would there be much value in increasing the Gateway to Warp Gate conversion time to the build time of a Zealot too, or would this simply lead to Protoss players stocking up their resources and making a larger flood of units at the end of the conversion time to compensate? My hope was that making it a long conversion time would effectively compensate the issue of Protoss players gaining a one-time production cycle bonus over their opponent at the time that Warp Gate research completes. You mentioned that you didn't feel that increasing the Warp Gate cooldown was an effective way of dealing with this, but what if these multiple solutions were combined in some way? | ||
|
LastWish
2013 Posts
Terran: * Siege Tank Siege Mode - buff single target damage to +20(the splash remains the same) - also I like the reduced supply cost you mentioned * Ghost - buff snipe damage to organic - emp larger radius, however spawn delay - so it can be dodged (the forming of the emp will be visualized to enemy plr) - cost back to 150, 150; more caster like unit, more powerful but less affordable * Viking - reduce air range slightly - add small splash to their air attack - ground viking +1 range * New unit Science Vessel - air spell caster - Defensive matrix(75) -> cast on allied unit to gain sort of immortal like shield for 15 seconds - Radiation field(125) - cast on a large area; radiation field that slowly grows in strength over 10 seconds, last 30 seconds total, 5 max damage/second vs biological ground units, no effect on mechanical, bypass shields(e.g. zealots), friendly fire, burrowed units are unaffected * Thor new ability - Shrapnel after 1.5 second fires shrapnels to a target area dealing 25 damage to any ground target(friendly fire) Zerg: * Viper - pulling large units distance shortened, the larger the unit the more the pull range is reduced - blinding cloud chanelling ability with 50% reduced cost * New unit Beetle - ground slow moving aoe damager - deals 10+10a damage to large ground area, very slow attack - attack also decrease armor of all units(sort of acid spores, max 3 spores on unit) - cost 125/125/3, available at lair tech Protoss: * remove oracle * Mothership new ability - Globe of Protection - cast on a huge ground area, makes any ground unit or building under this area immune to air attacks for 30 seconds; also applies to colossus attacks(as they are sort of air to ground attack) * Tempest - halve bonus damage to massive - increase damage by +5, +20 bonus damage to building * New unit Reaver - slow moving ground unit - ammunition - scarabs cost 10 minerals to make - after 1.5 seconds fires a scarab in ballistic trajectory(projectile moves slow) that after landing deals 55 damage to all enemy ground units - the target is a ground area so units can avoid being hit by moving - does have attack ground ability so you can also target terrain - damage can be upgraded to +15, does 40 bonus damage to buildings * Photon Cannon - 25 damage, 125 hp, 125 shields | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 14 2015 06:40 Pontius Pirate wrote: What was the logic behind the idea to put the Stalker at 13 flat damage instead of 14 flat damage? I feel like this Stalker supply change is an idea that deserves further consideration, especially if other supply changes start getting made. On a related note, I see the difference between 11 flat and 12 flat damage to be the biggest difference-maker, since that's when Stalkers 3-shot Zerglings. Also, was your plan to keep the upgrade scaling at +1, or were you thinking of moving it to +2? I was looking at Stalker vs Marine:
That's why I was considering only 12 or 13 flat damage. On the other hand we have Stalker vs Zergling interaction which I believe is in a very good spot. +2 upgrade scaling is also an option, but we have to be careful with buffing Protoss late game. In the end, there was so little discussion on the topic, I thought it would be safer not to change the damage (yet). Now that you asked it, it made me thinking about flat 12 and buffining Zergling to have 37 HP (3x12+1). Baneling light damage and Ultralisk damage would have to be set at 37 as well - but those are last cascading changes which should have no further negative effects. LastWish, thank you for your thoughts! Looking at your suggestions I think we will agree on some and disagree on others. However, we will discuss those when we get there. I don't want to split this discussion into multiple topics at the same time. | ||
| ||
