|
My 3 cents regarding sentry changes:
Forcefileds:
On June 14 2015 00:37 egrimm wrote:
I think that FF are fine as long as there are only couple of them cast in a fight. FF are not a problem neither in PvT nor in PvP as Protoss'es usually go for only 2-3 sentries and use them for guardian shield and some FF to grab imporant picks (like immortals or groups of marauders). Also later in the game they are less important and easier to bypass or destroy with massive units. Only in PvZ we still see a lot of sentries which seem necessery for proper defense + are really usefull when pushing in mid-game against zerg units because most of them are short range (roaches, zerglings).
IMO we could go for slight nerf to FF and sentries in general to allow protosses do not rely so heavily on them in PvZ BUT that would have to go in pair with some buff to P's core units/other defensible mechanic.
My take on slight sentry nerf would be one or combination of changes listed below:
1. FF on top of energy requirement would also have a cooldown which would be ~3 sec shorter than FF duration.
That change would mean that You cannot cast more FF at once than You have sentries = less spammable ability.
2. FF cannot be casted on parts of buildings or terrain like rocks etc. only on 'simple' ground.
Protosses would have to be more precise with their FF usage and could not simply FF on top of pylon or bunkers.
3. FF cannot be casted on ground where units are standing.
No more 'pushing' units with FF, 'FF donuts' etc. Casting FF would require carefull planning for both Protoss and enemy army movement.
Guardian Shield:
Problem with guardian shield is that it promotes clumping your units around sentry which leads to more deathball-ish play and also GS does not require micro other than repositioning your units to be inside of the bubble. In other words using GS is more beneficial when You have more units which can be affected by the ability.
What would be more ideal is to have other version of GS which aids Protoss units in small skirmishes instead of big fights. Actually sentry does work like that: 1-2 FF is not that detrimental and would not help in small skirmish either. The same is with GS.
I saw that You already made some changes to GS however I'd like to propose mine 
Instead of GS sentry does have ability that works on single target. What it could do is one of following:
1. Instantly recharge shields of targeted unit.
2. Instantly add shield to targeted unit (for example +100)
3. Cast Hardened shield (immortal ability) on single unit (with tweaked stats) or defensive matrix from BW's Science Vessel
4. Have passive ability which would heal shields (like medic/medivac)
ofc such ability would have to burn less energy as it is probably much weaker that GS but that is also what We are looking for: stronger Zelot/Stalker & weaker Sentry.
Also I'd Propose small cost reduction to Hallucination:
100 -> 75
That way hallucination might be usefull in small engagements to draw more fire of enemy's units.
|
Protoss mechanics (WG/MsC/Chrono Boost)
Chrono Boost
I think that CB should not be available right from the start of the game. Queens require spawning pool, mule's require barracks & CC. It makes sense to add some kind of tranformation to nexus (similar to gate->warpgate) which would give access to CB. That way:
1. Production time of gateway units could be slightly buffed (for example zelot production time was nerfed in WoL beta because of proxy 2 gate + CB)
2. We might add some other spell to nexus: tension between CB or other ability, smth that is lacking right now.
I actually would like to see recall from MsC moved to "planetary Nexus" with radius similar to FF/Storm.
Warpgate
First of all:
Ball656's take on WG mechanic is really good I'd definitely like to see it tested.
What I'd like to see additionally:
A. Move WG to TC
1. WG timings are not gonna be such a problem anymore because thay gonna hit later and also without blink or charge.
2. There is gonna be tension between upgrades on TC. Which to choose first? Blink or WG? Maybe Charge? Right now You always want to have WG asap.
3. More room for buffs to gateway units
B. Production time of Gateway units unified (the same for gateway and warpgate) but transforming into Warpgate cost as in Ball656's idea.
MsC
I myself do not like MsC/MS because they are hero units which do not belong to SC imho. Additinally Photon overcharge also is not really interesting/exciting ability even if curent balance needs it. With Recall on Nexus, stronger (and maybe build faster) gateway units and WG moved later and also hallucination cheaper allowing for faster scout, there may be not a necessity for MsC existence
|
|
|
egrimm, I think that some of the ideas that you bring to the discussion are worth considering, such as FF cooldown/cost change or Hallucination cost change. However, changing Guardian Shield to be a (shield) healing ability or act as a Defensive Matrix from Science Vessel - that may be too different ability and I would really like to avoid that.
I too think that Chronoboost early game introduces imbalances, such as buff to proxy gating. I remember myself the patch in WoL which nerfed Gateway production time because of that. I think we will discuss it further during the "Macro mecanics" section which is currently 2nd in the TODO list.
On July 15 2015 04:01 Barrin wrote:
The thing is I absolutely refuse to introduce new units/abilities. Players would have a seamless transition (identical mechanics, costs) from regular SC2 to my mod.
How close to this ideal do you plan on keeping in this project?
I don't think I am planning to be that absolute.
- New units? Never ever, although some of the existing ones may need some heavy tweaking changing their purpose a bit (Mothership Core, Swarm Host).
- New abilities? I don't want to add them just for the sake of adding stuff. However, some are really problematic and may require a change. I would also like to explore some of ideas of WoL or HotS beta that didn't make to the final product. For example - Oracle was originally intended to be an indirect harassment unit, but ended up being a direct worker killer, partially overlapping with Phoenix. Another example: Thor. Originally it had the 250mm Strike Cannons - an ability that was seldom used, currently replaced by a non-tactical "do more damage to X" button. I would like to explore reintrodice the Strike Cannons albeit with a different mechanic.
- Changing ability mechanics or costs? Yes, I do want to tweak them. Keeping all abilities exactly where they are would be too constraining in my opinion. A cost change might be surprising at first to a new player, but I don't think it would be a gamebreaking problem that a potential player cannot figure out. Like right now: we are considering adding a mineral cost to a gateway-to-warpgate transition.
So, ultimately, there will be some changes in abilities - but I hope to remain reasonable with them. The ease of transition from SC2 is also one of the objectives of SCI.
However, I would be more than happy to listen to your ideas! I value your opinion and hope to see you here, at least from time to time.
|
A couple thoughts:
Guardian Shield
- I agree with egrimm that it promotes balling up of Protoss units and was in favor of it being castable like it currently is in SCI, but rather than creating a shield dome it adds the extra armor to the units that are affected, after which they can move around with that protection until the effects run out.
- With it now affecting enemy units too I worry about Zerg getting a lot of benefit. lings, blings, ultras (particularly an issues with the high armor they will have in LotV), locusts, and broodlings, the latter two of who can be inserted into your army, can all benefit since they all easily get right up into your army.
Warpgate
- In order to nerf it somewhat, how about applying a temporary debuff on warped in units? All warped in units are slowed (attack and movement) for X seconds after being warped in. This reduces the ability to be aggressive with warped in units but maintains warpgate as a production tool.
Chronoboost
- Not in favor of removing it or making it harder to get to seeing as how Protoss is balanced around that too. Mules add additional eco without taking supply (and effectively build instantly), and zerg can store tons of larvae to produce large bursts of workers (or units) while probes only ever build one at a time. A result of this is needing more stable macro enhancement to keep pace.
- You could add a requirement (cyber core?) to allow chronoboost to be used on anything other than a Nexus to again affect upgrades and other unit builds.
|
On July 15 2015 10:40 xPrimuSx wrote:Guardian Shield- I agree with egrimm that it promotes balling up of Protoss units and was in favor of it being castable like it currently is in SCI, but rather than creating a shield dome it adds the extra armor to the units that are affected, after which they can move around with that protection until the effects run out.
- With it now affecting enemy units too I worry about Zerg getting a lot of benefit. lings, blings, ultras (particularly an issues with the high armor they will have in LotV), locusts, and broodlings, the latter two of who can be inserted into your army, can all benefit since they all easily get right up into your army.
Guardian Shield gives you +2 defense against ranged attacks. If your opponent uses a combination of ranged/melee then it is more a challenge to use the guardian shield properly - which I think it is a good thing. However, against link+baneling+ultralisk you shouldn't use the shield at all as it gives you no benefit.
I am also not in favor of letting the units keep the +2 benefit after they leave the dome. The hole idea of casting guardian shield on the ground is that you reinforce a spot. An enemy has an option to step away from it or run into it, partially negating the effect.
However, if you change the GS to be "give units +2 armor for 15 seconds" without location constraint - this does not give any option for the enemy to play around it. It would become a straightforward (boring) "make units stronger" button, similar to HotS prismatic beam or LotV Immortal barrier.
Also note, that the SCI version of Guardian Shield is immobile. You cannot just hug a sentry and move forward.
On July 15 2015 10:40 xPrimuSx wrote:Warpgate- In order to nerf it somewhat, how about applying a temporary debuff on warped in units? All warped in units are slowed (attack and movement) for X seconds after being warped in. This reduces the ability to be aggressive with warped in units but maintains warpgate as a production tool.
I to was thinking about some king of debuff, such as - warpgating units spawn without shields.
For a small X I fear that it will be just a small inconvenience. You will be still able to produce more units close to enemy base, giving only X extra seconds to enemy to prepare for it. If X is big, that will be a huge annoyance in other scenarios probably defeating the purpose of having warpgates in the first place.
On July 15 2015 10:40 xPrimuSx wrote:Chronoboost- Not in favor of removing it or making it harder to get to seeing as how Protoss is balanced around that too. Mules add additional eco without taking supply (and effectively build instantly), and zerg can store tons of larvae to produce large bursts of workers (or units) while probes only ever build one at a time. A result of this is needing more stable macro enhancement to keep pace.
- You could add a requirement (cyber core?) to allow chronoboost to be used on anything other than a Nexus to again affect upgrades and other unit builds.
We are rebalancing stuff. If we change chronoboost, we will have to make sure that Protoss is strong enough for the new condition. But that's what we are doing here anyway, right? We will look at all macro mechanics (chronoboost, mules, inject) soon
Experimental Branch
- Gateway-to-Warpgate: mineral cost set to 100. No change to transformation time. (based on Ball656's idea)
- Warpgate: removed back-to-Gateway button
|
On July 15 2015 04:57 BlackLilium wrote:
egrimm, I think that some of the ideas that you bring to the discussion are worth considering
Thx!
On July 15 2015 04:57 BlackLilium wrote:
However, changing Guardian Shield to be a (shield) healing ability or act as a Defensive Matrix from Science Vessel - that may be too different ability and I would really like to avoid that.
I understand Your concerns as it is quite big change but it would help sentry to work in small skirmishes early in the game instead of big balls of units, which is what Protoss really needs to trade efficiently with gateway units. I'm afraid that SCI version of GS, even if better than SC2 one, does not really adress that  btw passive shield-healing ability on sentry is implemented in LotV campaign
On July 15 2015 04:57 BlackLilium wrote:
I too think that Chronoboost early game introduces imbalances, such as buff to proxy gating. I remember myself the patch in WoL which nerfed Gateway production time because of that. I think we will discuss it further during the "Macro mecanics" section which is currently 2nd in the TODO list.
Glad to hear it
|
Experimental Branch pushed to Stable
0.5 supply
It is a small pecuriality known among Zerg players. A single Zergling and a Baneling takes 0.5 supply. While you originally produce Zerglings in pairs, you may lose an odd number of them. In the end your supply is a non-integer number, but it is not shown in any way in the UI. Pontius Pirate raises a question if this issue could be resolved by simply multiply all supply by 2. Cap would be at 400; pylons, overlords and supply depots would give 16 supply; marine, reaper, observer, would take 2 supply, etc... This would make each zerg consume 1 full supply solving the above problem.
However, this change would also allow us to better balance units in terms of their supply costs. There has been suggestions to make Roach take 1.5 supply or a Tank to take 2.5 in the past. With the x2 supply change, we could realistically consider these changes (I don't claim we should or should not. I just state the possibility.)
Worker supply cost
Assuming the above becomes true, I would like to revisit one of other economy model ideas, proposed by phantomfive: How to reward players for expanding a lot.
The idea is simple: reduce the supply cost of workers by 50%. With the above change this becomes viable.
Early game is speeded up by this change, but only by a small bit: it allows you to spend few more minerals at something different than pylons/depots/overlords.
In late game, it allows you to stay on 3 bases and have a maxed-up army about 25% stronger than in Standard.
However, it also allows you to have 4 or 5 fully saturated bases while maintaining strong maxed-up army.
While it does not negate the need for HMH, it streatches up how far can you go with greed. More options to play - more interesting game
If we go this way, however, there are some details which we may need to look at. A straight x2 supply on main buildings will allow strange play of a CC/Nexus first before a pylon. It is also very hard to get supply-blocked ever when just producing workers. This can buff Zerg's greedy builds - which may require a look on its own. On the other hand, if we keep the original supply bonus of main buildings, as an exception of x2 rule, it won't affect the Zerg since Zerg is starting with an Overlord anyway.
|
On July 17 2015 04:25 BlackLilium wrote:
If we go this way, however, there are some details which we may need to look at. A straight x2 supply on main buildings will allow strange play of a CC/Nexus first before a pylon. It is also very hard to get supply-blocked ever when just producing workers. This can buff Zerg's greedy builds - which may require a look on its own. On the other hand, if we keep the original supply bonus of main buildings, as an exception of x2 rule, it won't affect the Zerg since Zerg is starting with an Overlord anyway.
In relation to Zerg's greedier builds, could this be balanced by lowering the supply conferred by each Overlord, but not by Depots or Pylons?
|
I am late to this thread, but here is another idea I've had. Instead of just the concept of "high ground" and "low ground," I think there should be a type of ground called "fortified ground," which would reduce damage by 50% to defenders. So we would have three types of ground:
Normal ground: normal ground
High ground: affects vision
Fortified ground: 50% damage reduction (or miss rate)
Fortified ground can be a type of ground that mapmakers can either decide to use or not, giving them more freedom. It could be combined with high ground or low ground.
Thinking in terms of traditional military tactics, we could also have slow ground, like swamps (like the Roman Pontine marshes), or fast ground that affect the speed of an army moving across them. We could also have 'hot' ground that slowly depletes the health of armies that cross it. These are things that mapmakers could use, or not use, giving us more variation)
|
Completely different supply costs... even if it is just multiply by 2. It will confuse people.
I expect situations were people quickly glare at the supply, and seeing that they still have 8 supply, think that it is a lot - when it is not. The higher the numbers, the hard it is for human to comprehend them.
I am worried about the previous change though. With warpgates so costly, Protoss will now have really hard time in early and mid game, having so few units in the map.
|
On July 17 2015 14:50 BrokenSegment wrote:
Completely different supply costs... even if it is just multiply by 2. It will confuse people.
I expect situations were people quickly glare at the supply, and seeing that they still have 8 supply, think that it is a lot - when it is not. The higher the numbers, the hard it is for human to comprehend them.
I'm going to tell you something......I still get confused by the new game timer speed.
|
News
SCI - Coda LE
Coda LE with explicit use of SCI mod (stable branch) has been published. The map uses SCI-specific loading screen which briefly summarizes all the changes introduced to SCI. This way a new player has a hint of what is going on.
SCI extension mod is and will remain available as well if you want to use SCI with other maps. However, extension mods themselves cannot modify the loading screen (or at least, I don't know how)
SC Improved Group
I would like to remind you that if you are interested in playing the mod, there is a group "SC Improved" available. Hopefully this will help you find opponents
|
On July 17 2015 16:27 phantomfive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 14:50 BrokenSegment wrote:
Completely different supply costs... even if it is just multiply by 2. It will confuse people.
I expect situations were people quickly glare at the supply, and seeing that they still have 8 supply, think that it is a lot - when it is not. The higher the numbers, the hard it is for human to comprehend them. I'm going to tell you something......I still get confused by the new game timer speed.
???
What did they change? I didn't notice anything.
|
On July 17 2015 23:36 BrokenSegment wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 16:27 phantomfive wrote:On July 17 2015 14:50 BrokenSegment wrote:
Completely different supply costs... even if it is just multiply by 2. It will confuse people.
I expect situations were people quickly glare at the supply, and seeing that they still have 8 supply, think that it is a lot - when it is not. The higher the numbers, the hard it is for human to comprehend them. I'm going to tell you something......I still get confused by the new game timer speed. ??? What did they change? I didn't notice anything.
In LOTV, seconds last an entire second.
|
On July 18 2015 01:31 phantomfive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2015 23:36 BrokenSegment wrote:On July 17 2015 16:27 phantomfive wrote:On July 17 2015 14:50 BrokenSegment wrote:
Completely different supply costs... even if it is just multiply by 2. It will confuse people.
I expect situations were people quickly glare at the supply, and seeing that they still have 8 supply, think that it is a lot - when it is not. The higher the numbers, the hard it is for human to comprehend them. I'm going to tell you something......I still get confused by the new game timer speed. ??? What did they change? I didn't notice anything. In LOTV, seconds last an entire second.
lol OK. I see how a second lasting a second can be confusing 
but actually different supply costs and bigger increments may surprise people in bad way.
|
Out of all the changes that this mod is introducing, supply should be the easiest one to adjust to. You always see the supply in the UI. There is no hidden mechanic or count.
I am a bit more concerned about the reduced worker supply cost. It makes macroing a little bit cheaper and it reduces the benefit for someone cutting workers early. I would really like some other people's opinion on this one!
|
On July 18 2015 06:07 BlackLilium wrote:
I am a bit more concerned about the reduced worker supply cost. It makes macroing a little bit cheaper and it reduces the benefit for someone cutting workers early. I would really like some other people's opinion on this one!
I think
that reduced worker supply cost is such a big change, that it's hard to say what will happen without a lot of play testing. My own tests were positive, but I think we need more than that to say definitively it is a good thing.
I think the best way to approach these changes is to start with the ones that are obviously better. I'm interested in the changes to warp gate, that might be a good place to start. What is the best way to reward a player for not converting gateways to warp gates?
|
On July 19 2015 00:04 phantomfive wrote:
I think the best way to approach these changes is to start with the ones that are obviously better. I'm interested in the changes to warp gate, that might be a good place to start. What is the best way to reward a player for not converting gateways to warp gates?
By giving Gateways something that Warp Gates dont have. Warp Gates have an advantage but no disadvantage.
In my own mod I changed it so that Gateways produced units much faster then Warp Gates did. You would use Gateways to build an army. You would use Warp Gates to harass the enemy or reinforce during the battle.
You have to constantly switch between the two depending on situation, or keep some as Gateways and some as Warp Gates. This encourages different play styles and rewards good macro. You also need to have a good understanding of when to transform them.
I think this is the best solution, but some people disagree.
|
On July 19 2015 00:49 RoomOfMush wrote:
By giving Gateways something that Warp Gates dont have. Warp Gates have an advantage but no disadvantage.
In my own mod I changed it so that Gateways produced units much faster then Warp Gates did. You would use Gateways to build an army. You would use Warp Gates to harass the enemy or reinforce during the battle.
I am not convinced that it would really help.
In early game: Consider you do a 4-gate PvP. This is what you do:
- Keep gateways a while longer
- Push forward, while transforming to warpgates
- Perform a single warp-in
- Attack the enemy
At this point the defender has absolutely no advantage. If he didn't go warpgates himself, he is one warp-in cycle behind and his round of units are still being produced. If the defender manages to hold off the initial push, his faster gateways will slowly start to pay off, but the real benefit will be visible after another cycle of two.
In the late game: since money is less of an issue you are likely to just build few more warpgates to compensate for a higher cooldown time. When hitting maxed-up army, the cooldown becomes less of a problem anyway unless you are continuously trading.
Currently in SCI I proposed another solution: by adding an extra cost for Gateway-to-Warpgate transformation. An early-game 4-gate requires an additional 400 one-time mineral cost. That means he can include 4 less zealots or 3 less stalker. In early game this is a substantial difference.
In the late game the additional one-time cost becomes no-difference of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
