EPTStarbow - Page 136
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
InFaMOUs331
42 Posts
| ||
|
Zhadez10
Iceland39 Posts
Not that it is all too important but everyone is like floating so much gas so I thought I'd bring this up. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On January 27 2014 06:56 InFaMOUs331 wrote: I agree that the zerg macro mechanics (specifically larvae injection) are not enjoyable to use and feel unpolished from a design point of view. The implementation in SC2 makes more sense because it is much easier to gauge a player's macro skill from for example, the energy level of a queen or the amount of time between injections occurring. I am not suggesting that larvae injection should be the only mechanic and that queens should never have 25+ energy, but I do believe that larvae injection should be (to the very least) defined clearly as I feel like the changes made from WOL were unnecessary. If you go back to the original idea of Starbow, macro mechanics are supposed to hold large emphasis, but I feel like the current larvae injection doesn't clearly support this. I think the design decision to enforce larvae injection as it is should be challenged/explained. The starbow inject is more similar to chronoboost than the sc2 inject though. In sc2 you almost always need to keep injecting because you can stack up larva. In starbow you only need to use the inject ability if you've recently used larva. (I noticed I still kept the habit of injecting even though I was out of money to actually buy units.) So basically the use is the same: build probe, use chronoboost | build drone, use inject. And in both cases it's a clear boost to production. | ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
On January 27 2014 07:02 Grumbels wrote: The starbow inject is more similar to chronoboost than the sc2 inject though. In sc2 you almost always need to keep injecting because you can stack up larva. In starbow you only need to use the inject ability if you've recently used larva. (I noticed I still kept the habit of injecting even though I was out of money to actually buy units.) So basically the use is the same: build probe, use chronoboost | build drone, use inject. And in both cases it's a clear boost to production. Exactly this. In SC2 Zerg is known as the "macro race" due to the more intensive mechanics. The truth is that most people's unending affection for Zerg in SC2 comes form a fundamental flaw in the game - that being: the macro difficulty is different for each race. Zerg being the most difficult, Terran in the middle and Protoss way behind. Hence the constant bitching and moaning about how "the better player lost" when it comes to Zerg losing games while having better macro mechanics. Starbow seems to be aiming for a balanced set of macro mechanics for each race. No race should have a macro-advantage over another. So if you give Zerg the same power-house macro potential as seen in SC2, then it must be matched with the other races. That means even more boosting and chrono shit for Terran and Protoss so that they can stay even. I think things are fine the way they are with Zerg. Macro should be a big part of the game, but tactics and strategy and micro should be just as big. And Zerg sure as hell shouldn't be able to macro more than Protoss or Terran, because then we're back to Starcraft 2 where one race is harder to play but has a distinct advantage over other races when played by a skilled player. There should no such advantages for any particular race. | ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
| ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
I think the design decision to enforce larvae injection as it is should be challenged/explained. >>>+ Show Spoiler + Macro mechanics are not perfect in Starbow. But I will try to explain our reasoning behind them: + Show Spoiler + They got added into the game for three main reasons: 1) Add APM and multitasking in macro by giving each race a reason to constantly go back to the base 2) Give some kind of descision making/energy management on how to use the macro mechanics 3) Give build order diversity Lets look closer at HOW we have tried to solve this: 1). APM and multitasking All macro mechanics are cheaper to cast and/or lasts shorter, compared to SC2. Which means they can be cast more often = it takes more APM to have "perfect" macro. 2). Descision making Each race can use their energy on a couple of different things: Protoss - Speed up workers or army production, upgrades, boost Cannons for extra defence or use Rift to save units. Terran - Drop-down Workers, speed up army production, Scan for information. Zerg - Speed up Larvas, spread Creep, Heal units or structures, speed up the morphing of structures, Enrage for defence. It is probably most common to just spam then on worker/army production. Which is fine. But sometimes there are other reasons to do different things with the energy. 3.) Build order diversity Each race must "unlock" their macro mechanics by puchasing some kind of structure or unit. (OC, Queen, Nexus upg) The mechanics themselves can also be used to widen the space for different timings or build order choices, for example. devote CB energy on Dragoon range upgrade for faster pressure, spend Queen energy on Nurturing Swarm to get faster Lair tech etc. "Ok, but why must the macro mechanics be so similar and boring?" >>>+ Show Spoiler + We are aware that one fundamental aspect of Starcraft is the uniqueness between races. But for the most part of the develoment, we have been around 10-15 active players, who playtested this on a regular basis. We wanted to establish a decent balance amoung ourselves, and for that reason, each macro mechanic became a "Chrono boost", just because it was easier to calculate the strength of them. It gave APM to macro, it felt kinda even, but the design was a bit "ugly". It was however playable so we settled with it, and instead moved on to other areas of the game to look at. Partly for the same reason, we added so each race can get access to their macro mechanics kinda at the same time. Queen, OC or upgraded Nexus can be available after the initial production structure for each race is built. During earlier playtesting, it seemed much more cost efficient to only use macro mechanics on workers, tech and units from expensive production structures. We wanted to encourage its usage on cheap structures like Barrack and Gateway. Thereby CB and Overcharge got a better effect on those structures, which should reward players more for using them constantly throughout the game for army production. Is there no way to make macro mechanics more unique? >>>+ Show Spoiler + Surely there are. Here are some earlier stuff we looked at: Chrono boost - Remain as it is in terms of design. Inject - Make each cycle "pop" a few extra larvas. Each Hatchery can maybe stack 5-7 larvas to avoid insane instant re-max situations. (Aka more SC2 style).. Probably with cheaper energy cost and shorter cooldown, so its more important to use it more often. Terran - SCV Calldown remain as it is, and different version of Overcharge. OC can calldown a "one-time-reactor" on top of a production facility. This reactor allows two units to be built at the same time, and after they finish, the reactor is destroyed. (And can be added again via casting the spell once more..) The later version of Overcharge feels unique, fun and more like Terran. But it was hard to make it work properly in the editor, it felt a bit clunky to play with, and it would probably be hard to balance anyway. Ofc one might argue that Overcharge at all is not needed. Which might be true. We kinda felt that with only Calldown SCV, Terran macro had a lot less things to do with the APM. And we want to increase the skill cap for all races in that regard. Just some thoughts on why macro mechanics look like they do. But as usual, we intend to make the game better, and this is an area we will surely look more into as the development proceeds. | ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
On January 27 2014 07:36 Kabel wrote: @Regarding macro mechanics in Starbow >>>+ Show Spoiler + Macro mechanics are not perfect in Starbow. But I will try to explain our reasoning behind them: + Show Spoiler + They got added into the game for three main reasons: 1) Add APM and multitasking in macro by giving each race a reason to constantly go back to the base 2) Give some kind of descision making/energy management on how to use the macro mechanics 3) Give build order diversity Lets look closer at HOW we have tried to solve this: 1). APM and multitasking All macro mechanics are cheaper to cast and/or lasts shorter, compared to SC2. Which means they can be cast more often = it takes more APM to have "perfect" macro. 2). Descision making Each race can use their energy on a couple of different things: Protoss - Speed up workers or army production, upgrades, boost Cannons for extra defence or use Rift to save units. Terran - Drop-down Workers, speed up army production, Scan for information. Zerg - Speed up Larvas, spread Creep, Heal units or structures, speed up the morphing of structures, Enrage for defence. It is probably most common to just spam then on worker/army production. Which is fine. But sometimes there are other reasons to do different things with the energy. 3.) Build order diversity Each race must "unlock" their macro mechanics by puchasing some kind of structure or unit. (OC, Queen, Nexus upg) The mechanics themselves can also be used to widen the space for different timings or build order choices, for example. devote CB energy on Dragoon range upgrade for faster pressure, spend Queen energy on Nurturing Swarm to get faster Lair tech etc. "Ok, but why must the macro mechanics be so similar and boring?" >>>+ Show Spoiler + We are aware that one fundamental aspect of Starcraft is the uniqueness between races. But for the most part of the develoment, we have been around 10-15 active players, who playtested this on a regular basis. We wanted to establish a decent balance amoung ourselves, and for that reason, each macro mechanic became a "Chrono boost", just because it was easier to calculate the strength of them. It gave APM to macro, it felt kinda even, but the design was a bit "ugly". It was however playable so we settled with it, and instead moved on to other areas of the game to look at. Partly for the same reason, we added so each race can get access to their macro mechanics kinda at the same time. Queen, OC or upgraded Nexus can be available after the initial production structure for each race is built. During earlier playtesting, it seemed much more cost efficient to only use macro mechanics on workers, tech and units from expensive production structures. We wanted to encourage its usage on cheap structures like Barrack and Gateway. Thereby CB and Overcharge got a better effect on those structures, which should reward players more for using them constantly throughout the game for army production. Is there no way to make macro mechanics more unique? >>>+ Show Spoiler + Surely there are. Here are some earlier stuff we looked at: Chrono boost - Remain as it is in terms of design. Inject - Make each cycle "pop" a few extra larvas. Each Hatchery can maybe stack 5-7 larvas to avoid insane instant re-max situations. (Aka more SC2 style).. Probably with cheaper energy cost and shorter cooldown, so its more important to use it more often. Terran - SCV Calldown remain as it is, and different version of Overcharge. OC can calldown a "one-time-reactor" on top of a production facility. This reactor allows two units to be built at the same time, and after they finish, the reactor is destroyed. (And can be added again via casting the spell once more..) The later version of Overcharge feels unique, fun and more like Terran. But it was hard to make it work properly in the editor, it felt a bit clunky to play with, and it would probably be hard to balance anyway. Ofc one might argue that Overcharge at all is not needed. Which might be true. We kinda felt that with only Calldown SCV, Terran macro had a lot less things to do with the APM. And we want to increase the skill cap for all races in that regard. Just some thoughts on why macro mechanics look like they do. But as usual, we intend to make the game better, and this is an area we will surely look more into as the development proceeds. I feel that you guys developed Starbow's macro mechanics in a very fair way. If people want more macro in the game for all races equally then that's fine, but instant re-max and super-production off of each hatchery for Zerg is not the way to do this. Such a thing would greatly imbalance the power of each race relative to player skill. I would suggest not giving in to people whining about Zerg in particular so quickly, as I believe they are just refusing to change their habits from SC2 and adapt to a new game. Higher production can be achieved by building more hatcheries, plain and simple. Also, I think this balance patching is happening way too often. There is such a thing as "too much of a good thing" when it comes to developers listening to feedback. There is a risk of alienating people when you patch the game practically every day. It's annoying to constantly have to re-explore every strategy when almost nothing has been explored in the current meta. This becomes even worse when funadmental game mechanics are changed like macro. The game is not fundamentally broken. Give players time to figure things out. It sucks to have to reset and start over every other day. | ||
|
InFaMOUs331
42 Posts
On January 27 2014 07:52 SCST wrote: I feel that you guys developed Starbow's macro mechanics in a very fair way. If people want more macro in the game for all races equally then that's fine, but instant re-max and super-production off of each hatchery for Zerg is not the way to do this. Such a thing would greatly imbalance the power of each race relative to player skill. I would suggest not giving in to people whining about Zerg in particular so quickly, as I believe they are just refusing to change their habits from SC2 and adapt to a new game. Higher production can be achieved by building more hatcheries, plain and simple. Also, this balance patching is happening way too often. There is such a thing as "too much of a good thing" when it comes to developers listening to feedback. There is a risk of alienating people when you patch the game practically every day. It's annoying to constantly have to re-explore every strategy when almost nothing has been explored in the current meta. This becomes even worse when funadmental game mechanics are changed like macro. You are misunderstanding something. This is not even a question of balance. My original suggestion was actually more so from a gameplay/design point of view- a suggestion made with the purpose of increasing enjoyment of the game. As the community has learned from past experiences, it is the lack of action that can cause the most problems. Starbow is successful not because SC2 is not 'balanced', as the winrates suggest otherwise. It is the fact that SC2 is not a fulfilling experience, and that should be the primary goal from the offset- not maintaining balance. The patching process is incredibly important as Starbow is currently in beta and major experimentation should occur now rather than later, as core design decisions are best made early. | ||
|
saltis
159 Posts
On January 27 2014 06:11 Grumbels wrote: I played some games and came to the conclusion that the queen's lack of attack feels very awkward for me. I want the queen to have at least some default attack. I don't care if it's very weak, as I'm still undecided on enrage, but I want to be able to group my queen together with my early game defensive units and attack-move without the queen awkwardly moving to the front. And later in the game I want to be able to send my queen to attack an air unit regardless of whether enrage is active. I would like queens to have melee attack so I could block ramp and gaps agains lings run by. | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
On January 27 2014 07:52 SCST wrote: I feel that you guys developed Starbow's macro mechanics in a very fair way. If people want more macro in the game for all races equally then that's fine, but instant re-max and super-production off of each hatchery for Zerg is not the way to do this. Such a thing would greatly imbalance the power of each race relative to player skill. I would suggest not giving in to people whining about Zerg in particular so quickly, as I believe they are just refusing to change their habits from SC2 and adapt to a new game. Higher production can be achieved by building more hatcheries, plain and simple. Also, I think this balance patching is happening way too often. There is such a thing as "too much of a good thing" when it comes to developers listening to feedback. There is a risk of alienating people when you patch the game practically every day. It's annoying to constantly have to re-explore every strategy when almost nothing has been explored in the current meta. This becomes even worse when funadmental game mechanics are changed like macro. The game is not fundamentally broken. Give players time to figure things out. It sucks to have to reset and start over every other day. In general, I agree with you, but starbow is far from finished and there are still things we discuss/discover that is fundamentally broken/bad design even when it's not being discovered by the players. We did not expect this boom in popularity to happen before the game was supposed to be released into beta, so it's still full of errors. From another viewpoint, it is the beta right now, this is the time where we should try out unpredictable stuff. If there are to be big changes in design, we shouldn't wait too long. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
In any case, I think that with starbow gaining some attention it might be possible to find some knowledgeable mappers that can get the desired terran macro mechanics to work? If it's just one ability it seems like you could outsource that. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
Would you consider reducing the research time or build cost on the marine/marauder weapon range? It is too easy to just die to 3 ranged upgraded goons in the beginning of the game. | ||
|
chobopeon
United States7342 Posts
| ||
|
K3Nyy
United States1961 Posts
| ||
|
Cheren
United States2911 Posts
| ||
|
Morbidius
Brazil3449 Posts
lol@mods User was warned for this post | ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
On January 27 2014 07:58 InFaMOUs331 wrote: You are misunderstanding something. This is not even a question of balance. My original suggestion was actually more so from a gameplay/design point of view- a suggestion made with the purpose of increasing enjoyment of the game. As the community has learned from past experiences, it is the lack of action that can cause the most problems. Starbow is successful not because SC2 is not 'balanced', as the winrates suggest otherwise. It is the fact that SC2 is not a fulfilling experience, and that should be the primary goal from the offset- not maintaining balance. The patching process is incredibly important as Starbow is currently in beta and major experimentation should occur now rather than later, as core design decisions are best made early. Ah, then I did misunderstand what you were saying. As far as making the game more fun without fundamentally changing things then I see nothing wrong with those kinds of suggestions. I just feel that I can clearly see the flaw in SC2 with regards to macro being so different for each race and I am a bit paranoid about such a thing occurring in Starbow. After all, it's one thing to make each race feel unique and fun and quite another to be pigeon-holed into choosing "Macro Race vs Micro Race vs Special-Tactics Race" in an RTS. You all know which races those metaphors are referring to.  On January 27 2014 08:05 SolidSMD wrote: In general, I agree with you, but starbow is far from finished and there are still things we discuss/discover that is fundamentally broken/bad design even when it's not being discovered by the players. We did not expect this boom in popularity to happen before the game was supposed to be released into beta, so it's still full of errors. From another viewpoint, it is the beta right now, this is the time where we should try out unpredictable stuff. If there are to be big changes in design, we shouldn't wait too long. I understand about experimenting and I'm all for it. But if you don't wait a little while between these patches, how will you know if your experiment worked? It's like conducting a series of scientific experiments and deciding that you want to move onto the next one before even seeing the results of the first! Though I feel you're all doing a great job, I don't understand how you can judge the situation so quickly. Especially when we've seen how long it can take for professional players (en masse) to figure out strategies and work with units. If hundreds upon hundreds of professional players take weeks and months to figure things out, how can 10-15 people come to these kinds of conclusions in a matter of hours and days? I just feel that you're moving too quickly. I still haven't seen hardly any burrowed roach play and I swear half the players who stream don't even have a clue that it's not the same as SC2. Idra included. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9384 Posts
On January 27 2014 08:11 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Hider, Would you consider reducing the research time or build cost on the marine/marauder weapon range? It is too easy to just die to 3 ranged upgraded goons in the beginning of the game. I dont have that experience. Do you research range before stim and get a bunker (?). But stim research time btw is too long, which means you have to be a bit in the defensive early game as bio. Hopefully it will be reduced soon. Regarding bio, both Maurauder and Firebats could probably also use a small buff. | ||
|
SolidSMD
Belgium408 Posts
Well, most of the changes we discuss are not purely balance related. For example: right now we are discussing a change for the marauder, the reason is: bio does not perform well versus protoss. There can be loads of reasons why bio does not perform well, but the clear reason we can find is that compared to hots, chargelots are a lot faster and marauders don't have concussive shot. For this reason kiting isn't rewarded enough for bio, so we're probably gonna make the marauder more agile in the next patch, for example same speed as marines. There are a lot of flaws like this in the game and we don't need to wait for the metagame to develop before addressing these issues. *edit: To clarify, marauders are slower than marines right now. | ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
| ||
| ||
