EPTProject: Starcraft Improved - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
BrokenSegment
36 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
I put it in stable immediately as it does not really change anything, besides UI. You are right, that we should first focus on more pressing changes. Reducing worker count to 1 would be a wild experiment, and not necessarily good. Still, with the doubled supply overall we open the possibility to try it in the future. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
knyttym in "Hot Mineral Harvesting" thread said: As for macro, it is way too easy to use all your money off of three bases. I'm guessing Starbow already had this issue which is why they already have a solution in place for this exact issue. I would just copy their solution. They retooled macro mechanics and forced players to both look at their base more often and click buildings rapidly/accurately. While there are many ways how macro mechanics could be affected, the most direct one are the tools of each race that allows them to boost their income and/or army production. More specifically: Larva Inject, MULE, Chronoboost. From what I have seen and heared from various players of different skills here are some problems:
Is there any other problem with these? Or do you think some of those is a non-issue? Here are some suggestions I have:
| ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On July 19 2015 18:00 BlackLilium wrote: [*] Larva Inject
It should be made auto-cast. For example, much like SCVs have an option to turn on auto-repair, the queen can be set to automatically cast inject on the nearest hatchery as soon as it has energy. The more boring mechanics can be automated, the more players can focus on strategy, the more fun the game is. | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
In relation to Mules, I really like the Starbow detail that calling down an SCV still costs 50 minerals, although I wouldn't like that exact change in SC2. The Mule is a temporary unit, so it may have some slightly different needs. Therefore, the basic idea (one that will surely require further fine tuning and detailing) that I'd like to propose is that the Mules last long enough for 3 more trips on a close mineral patch and 4 more trips on a medium or far mineral patch, but they cost 100 minerals to call down, as well as them not being able to mine from a patch that a Mule is already mining from. The hope behind this is that Terran players will no longer feel at liberty to call down Mules upon a newly-taken and largely undefended base, as this would be both a waste of energy and a direct backfire in terms of income. It forces players to use Mules a bit more judiciously. They'll be getting roughly the same amount of total income from Mules, but it will be slightly less of an early game income boost, and more of a delayed, yet consistent source of income. I don't think there's a problem with chronoboost itself, but if it were a spell that was taken from the same energy pool as other spells such as Photon Overcharge, or maybe some sort of shield recharging spell, I feel it would add some excellent energy-management dynamics to its use. More to the point, this would use chronoboost to help make PO a more interesting ability. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of tooling it more for lategame use by itself, but a Twilight Council unlocked upgrade for make chronoboost more effective seems worthwhile. | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On July 20 2015 04:25 Pontius Pirate wrote: A start for larva inject would be to forbid more than 7 larva per Hatchery. This way, it becomes harder to stockpile huge amounts of larva without huge amounts of bases or macro Hatcheries. I'm interested, how would that improve the game? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 20 2015 03:12 phantomfive wrote: It should be made auto-cast. For example, much like SCVs have an option to turn on auto-repair, the queen can be set to automatically cast inject on the nearest hatchery as soon as it has energy. The more boring mechanics can be automated, the more players can focus on strategy, the more fun the game is. I agree that mundane, choiceless mechanic should be automated if possible. On the other hand, auto-casted Spawn Larvae would permit Zerg not to look into its own base ever and promote sloppy play. With Protoss and Terran, if you stop production you waste time. In case of Zerg, you just stockpile larva which then can be all used in a single burst. And that is the reason why, I think, Blizzard still didn't put Spawn Larva under autocast: it requires Zerg to actively do something, or they loose production time the same way as other races. For that reason, Spawn Larvae alone is not a good solution. However, if we couple it with another change: say - the limited amount of stockpiled larvae as Pontius Pirate suggests - this may work as intended. Zerg still has to regularly make use of the larvae or they lose time. Stockpiling is possible only to a certain extend after which you need a macro hatch or more of them. On July 20 2015 04:25 Pontius Pirate wrote: In relation to Mules, I really like the Starbow detail that calling down an SCV still costs 50 minerals, although I wouldn't like that exact change in SC2. The Mule is a temporary unit, so it may have some slightly different needs. Therefore, the basic idea (one that will surely require further fine tuning and detailing) that I'd like to propose is that the Mules last long enough for 3 more trips on a close mineral patch and 4 more trips on a medium or far mineral patch, but they cost 100 minerals to call down, as well as them not being able to mine from a patch that a Mule is already mining from. The hope behind this is that Terran players will no longer feel at liberty to call down Mules upon a newly-taken and largely undefended base, as this would be both a waste of energy and a direct backfire in terms of income. It forces players to use Mules a bit more judiciously. They'll be getting roughly the same amount of total income from Mules, but it will be slightly less of an early game income boost, and more of a delayed, yet consistent source of income. I like the last sentence argument of MULEs being an initial investment which pays off only after a few seconds. However, I am not sure that it would stop Terran from spamming MULEs into a new undefended base. I also wonder what Terran-main players would say about this. | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
On July 20 2015 14:41 BlackLilium wrote: I agree that mundane, choiceless mechanic should be automated if possible. On the other hand, auto-casted Spawn Larvae would permit Zerg not to look into its own base ever and promote sloppy play. Meh. People said the same thing about worker auto-mine. And they were right, worker auto-mine does reduce the necessary APM and allows players with worse mechanics to do better. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 21 2015 01:08 phantomfive wrote: Meh. People said the same thing about worker auto-mine. And they were right, worker auto-mine does reduce the necessary APM and allows players with worse mechanics to do better. The next sentence after the one you quoted is more important: "With Protoss and Terran, if you stop production you waste time. In case of Zerg [if auto-cast SL was present], you just stockpile larva which then can be all used in a single burst." I am Platinum player and one of the main reasons why I am stuck here is that I forget to keep producing workers and units the moment a fight starts. As a Zerg I keep forgetting about Spawn Larvae. An auto-casted "Spawn Larvae" could be compared to auto-casted "keep building this unit". Just to be clear: in general, I am not against auto-casted Spawn Larvae, because there is absolutely no choice in that (in contrary to unit building). What I am saying is that if we introduce auto-casting for Larvae, we need to reintroduce some other mechanic, hopefully with a meaningful choice, that would separate Platinum players like me who forget stuff from Diamond player who are on the point with that. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9371 Posts
I agree that mundane, choiceless mechanic should be automated if possible. On the other hand, auto-casted Spawn Larvae would permit Zerg not to look into its own base ever and promote sloppy play. Does that imply you think a higher mechanical entrance barrier is always better? Or are there some situations where mechanics doesn't make the game better, and if so, what are they? | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 21 2015 02:44 Hider wrote: Does that imply you think a higher mechanical entrance barrier is always better? Or are there some situations where mechanics doesn't make the game better, and if so, what are they? I do not really want to talk in such general game design problems here unless it is going to somehow influence the mod. In this particular case, I expanded and explained the problem in the post right above yours: the sloppyness permission between different races. Yes, let's simplify Spawn Larvae, but we need to give some other - hopefully meaningful - thing to do in the base. Otherwise, I fear that Zerg would become the simplest race to play macro-wise. | ||
|
Pontius Pirate
United States1557 Posts
On July 20 2015 06:01 phantomfive wrote: I'm interested, how would that improve the game? Zerg players would be forced to plan for their remaxes more thoughtfully, as they'd either need a fuckton of bases in order to have enough larva stockpiled, or they'd have to have deliberately invested resources into building many additional macro hatches. As it currently stands, it's not uncommon to just accidentally have ~150 larva sitting around at several bases + 1 or 2 macro Hatcheries, with Queens at each. It institutes a higher game planning and thinking skill cap without introducing a tougher mechanical skill floor. On July 20 2015 14:41 BlackLilium wrote: I like the last sentence argument of MULEs being an initial investment which pays off only after a few seconds. However, I am not sure that it would stop Terran from spamming MULEs into a new undefended base. I also wonder what Terran-main players would say about this. Oops, I forgot to include the qualifier that Terran players would be discouraged from dumping more than 8 mules on a newly taken base at a time, not that they wouldn't dump mules on new bases at all. So it really only comes to effect during really really heavy-economy lategame situations. This particular aspect is kind of a minor detail, but I feel it would reduce the severity of one particular Terran-specific quirk, while not really handicapping the Terran in normal game scenarios. That having been said, I think that in a close game, the Terran player would not always want to take the risk of dumping even a few Mules on an undefended base, provided that they know the opponent has already scouted it. The loss of both ~800-1100 potential minerals + Orbital Command energy and 300-400 direct minerals would do a lot to dissuade careless Mule usage. | ||
|
xPrimuSx
92 Posts
A Terran player will have some degree of wanting to save energy for scan vs using mules, but once the anticipated crisis is gone they can just spam mules. The easiest thing in this regard would be to add a cooldown to the ability so that you can't just spam out the energy. Alternatively you could do something like remove Supply Calldown and add another ability that is actually used more frequently, maybe bring back defensive barrier, or maybe something that improves production temporarily to help them to remax in late game (unit cost reduction, build time decrease, adds more parallel lines of production like a reactor, calls down copies of a selected unit to site, etc... ?). As has been made very clear in numerous posts in this thread and others, a Zerg player can just sit on extra larvae, provided they didn't miss an inject, and energy tension can be resolved by just producing more Queens which end up useful for late game armies given their other abilities. Tension is resolved in this case quite quickly by producing more Queens as the game goes on and making Queens more expensive or increasing their production time would likely not have the desired impact. The spells are already pretty useful so I personally can't think of a way to change it up to maintain tension. Maybe change the ability to produce 2 larvae and speed up standard larvae production so the benefit is delayed and stretched out over time. Another idea I had would be that the Queen produces "enhanced" larvae that start with essentially +1/+1 (temporarily, permanently?) for whatever unit is produced by them, but they build slower. A Zerg player would not want to produce enhanced Drones or Overlords if they can avoid it, creating a need to make sure you're using the right kind of larvae at the right time. However, this does make remaxing a nightmare with an army of enhanced Zerg. although the build time increase might be a saving grace. For Protoss, as pointed out by BlackLilium, the only option is to chronoboost. To this end I think the big issue would be to add some kind of energy tension by adding a spell (at least 1) to the Nexus. To this end I nominate Forcefield and call for removing it from the Sentry at the same time. FF would have a hard time being spammed considering you need Nexus energy, while creating big tension between using chronoboost to enhance production or saving precious energy for FF. Having FF available so early won't really change anything since a Nexus can only provide so many, and in fact would end up nerfing Protoss early game, leaving room for other buffs. Also, old Nexii would definitely have a purpose in the late game with each expansion also giving you greater battlefield control. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 21 2015 15:58 xPrimuSx wrote: I think a big issue with the macro mechanics is energy tension as they are all designed to be forgiving to a certain extent, inject is combined with stockpiling, mules are combined with being able to spam it, and chronoboost with applying to nearly everything in the protoss side of macro. I think this is a very valid observation. I think the macro mechanics should be somewhat forgiving, but only to a certain extend. I am also looking at it from a different angle - what the opponent can do to prevent or reduce the effectiveness of the macro mechanic. Forgiveness:
Opponent's response:
I see some interesting suggestions out here. Let me comment on these: MULE
At this point I am inclining combining the cooldown and limited cast range. What is your opinion on this? Spawn Larvae
I am thinking about adding the auto-cast + no-spell on over-3-larva hatchery. What do you think about it? Chronoboost
Ultimately, I still think that Chronoboost on MSC, coupled with unlocking MSC count, nerfing their defensive abilities and reducing unit build time in Gateways to match Warpgates is the way to go. However, I would really like to hear "yes" or "but...-s" from your side before proceeding. On July 21 2015 15:58 xPrimuSx wrote: Trying to heavily reduce this degree of forgiveness seems counter-productive versus what Blizzard is likely to adapt should this mod become really popular. My goal is for the community to like the changes, while at the same time not having too much problems when transitioning to and from standard SC2. However I do not want to compromise because of Blizzard's politics. | ||
|
Masemium
Netherlands33 Posts
But this might create a problem when you go mass Queens and thus effectively have endless energy for endless Larva. Spawn Larva creating "lesser" temporary Larva (that die over time) was another idea that more people have had over the years. Another idea was Spawn Larva "overheating" the Hatchery, so that it won't spawn any Larva for x time, perhaps even deal damage to it. This was a cool spell I once had, where the caster forces the Hatchery to poop out Larva, which places the Hatchery into a grumpy mood  | ||
|
phantomfive
Korea (South)404 Posts
| ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 22 2015 14:10 phantomfive wrote: At the pro level, gamers do stockpile larva. That's already the dynamic. Autocast would merely make that strategy available to people of lesser mechanics. Which reduces the difference between Gold Zerg and Master Zerg. I don't claim that a meaningless mechanical decision should be the differentiation, but that there should be some differentiation. Reducing the amount of stockpile, which may convince Master Zergs to get more macro hatcheries may be a solution. I am not sure if it is enough, but it is a good try at least. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
Any ideas? Thanks! | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
Then, the Lair and Hive get 4 and 5 Larvae as max Larvae limit respectively. This way you encourage Zergs to build macro hatcheries if they want to pool larvae and you give incentives to upgrade hatcheries. At the same time the Spawn Larvae ability still gives a bonus to zerg macro as long as you keep constantly producing units. As to your question: I would make one behavior for each amount of larvae that a hatchery could have and then check for the behavior in the validator. | ||
|
BlackLilium
Poland426 Posts
On July 23 2015 01:41 RoomOfMush wrote: As to your question: I would make one behavior for each amount of larvae that a hatchery could have and then check for the behavior in the validator. I thought about that too. But then I need the larva itself to remove the behavior whenever it is morfed to an egg or dies. Which means, that the larva has to remember from which hatchery it spawned from. I am not sure if there is such a thing in Data. On July 23 2015 01:41 RoomOfMush wrote: Why dont you change Spawn Larvae so that instead of giving you larvae instantly it speeds up the automatic larvae regeneration. Then, the Lair and Hive get 4 and 5 Larvae as max Larvae limit respectively. This is an interesting take on the subject indeed! Now that you mention it, I believe Starbow uses a similar method? P.S. Happy to see that you keep an eye on this thread  | ||
| ||
