|
On February 10 2014 17:59 SCST wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 17:52 coZy wrote:On February 10 2014 17:42 SCST wrote:
Some slightly radical ideas to make the SC2 units more viable/fun in Starbow:
Stalker: Add hallucination ability with cool-down (similar to sentry but no mana)
Baneling: Add ability to manually detonate. Enemy units within a certain radius of detonation are slowed for a bit
Roach Not much to add, might just need a little buff to make it more viable. For the stalker, it's already got blink with high ground sight without upgrades, so giving it a hallucination ability would be kinda pointless. At least I think the high ground sight with blink is still in the game, haven't played in a couple weeks. I don't think the baneling idea makes much sense. Seems like an ability like that would never be used. People would rather have damage be done imo than have units be slowed, plus banelings already have a tough time catching up to other units so it'd be even less viable without a complete redesign of the unit. Good points. I'm really just tossing anything that comes to mind out. Something has to be done/added to these units to make them more viable, even if it's slightly ridiculous or radical. Maybe stalkers should have a personal cloaking ability in addition to blink. Might be interesting to expand on the "assassin" theme. Cloak can be researched. I'm stumped regarding baneling. Any ideas?
Banelings are already widely used to the point of the devs thinking about getting rid of them due to them being overpowered (which is contrary to my personal experience).
As for stalkers, it has two abilities which make it usable. It is also fairly easy to tech to so adding cloak may make it a bit overused in early game. I think there has not been enough playing with the right amount of gateway vs warpgate in the mid to late game for us to really say it doesn't have a use.
|
On February 09 2014 13:10 tehredbanditt wrote:
I think I remember reading somewhere that the creators of SB were against the force field. Personally, I think force field was horrible for SC2 and it's one of the reasons I stopped playing. I hope that they never implement the force field into this mod. Or any ability remotely like it.
Stasis 
|
On February 10 2014 18:04 Season wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 17:59 SCST wrote:On February 10 2014 17:52 coZy wrote:On February 10 2014 17:42 SCST wrote:
Some slightly radical ideas to make the SC2 units more viable/fun in Starbow:
Stalker: Add hallucination ability with cool-down (similar to sentry but no mana)
Baneling: Add ability to manually detonate. Enemy units within a certain radius of detonation are slowed for a bit
Roach Not much to add, might just need a little buff to make it more viable. For the stalker, it's already got blink with high ground sight without upgrades, so giving it a hallucination ability would be kinda pointless. At least I think the high ground sight with blink is still in the game, haven't played in a couple weeks. I don't think the baneling idea makes much sense. Seems like an ability like that would never be used. People would rather have damage be done imo than have units be slowed, plus banelings already have a tough time catching up to other units so it'd be even less viable without a complete redesign of the unit. Good points. I'm really just tossing anything that comes to mind out. Something has to be done/added to these units to make them more viable, even if it's slightly ridiculous or radical. Maybe stalkers should have a personal cloaking ability in addition to blink. Might be interesting to expand on the "assassin" theme. Cloak can be researched. I'm stumped regarding baneling. Any ideas? Banelings are already widely used to the point of the devs thinking about getting rid of them due to them being overpowered (which is contrary to my personal experience). As for stalkers, it has two abilities which make it usable. It is also fairly easy to tech to so adding cloak may make it a bit overused in early game. I think there has not been enough playing with the right amount of gateway vs warpgate in the mid to late game for us to really say it doesn't have a use.
That's ironic, for some reason I thought that banelings were being taken out because they were underpowered and not being used.
Regarding stalkers, it may be true that they have a use but I have not seen a single game with stalkers in all my Starbow thus far. I've also watched tons and tons of games. No stalkers being used. 
|
There was a 3 gate quick stalker push before the nexus energy nerf a bit ago in PvT that was a tad annoying to deal with on certain maps. Could be easily scouted though as P isn't really making any units before Stalkers. There are also some interesting places Stalkers can blink (one being on Bloody Ridge from the 4th base to the far side of the main)
|
@bug
WHen a unit from highground shoots at lowground, the vision is very small amount of time. (Should be longer vision, like 1.5sec more or something)
|
Romson used stalkers in PvT to great effect a while ago. I think plp just forget about them and relay on BW builds.
|
On February 10 2014 17:59 SCST wrote:
I'm stumped regarding baneling. Any ideas?
At least remove baneling speed and make it more expensive. Give it some kind of cooldown ability, like charge or something.
Like it can only charge in a single direction and can't change course. Then if the opponent dodges it, then they only have to deal with it on its default speed? To at least force the zerg to think about how it uses its baneling.
|
On February 10 2014 20:43 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 17:59 SCST wrote:
I'm stumped regarding baneling. Any ideas?
At least remove baneling speed and make it more expensive. Give it some kind of cooldown ability, like charge or something. Like it can only charge in a single direction and can't change course. Then if the opponent dodges it, then they only have to deal with it on its default speed? To at least force the zerg to think about how it uses its baneling.
Single file speed idea was actually what Foxxan here suggested a while ago... anyone else think it is a good idea? If enough people are thinking about the same idea, it might be good
|
Have you guys thought about buffing SCV hp a little bit? I mean, since this game is closer to brood war than sc2 - and SCVs in brood war have 60(!)hp, wouldn't it make sense at least to give the Starbow SCV 50, 55 hp or something. It would certaintly help agains muta harrass / ling runbys.
|
Haha, watching today's proleague really highlights the need for this mod :D Over 2 hour siege tank vs swarm host turtle fest ending in a draw for those of you unaware ^^
|
On February 10 2014 20:48 Xiphias wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2014 20:43 itsMAHVELbaybee wrote:On February 10 2014 17:59 SCST wrote:
I'm stumped regarding baneling. Any ideas?
At least remove baneling speed and make it more expensive. Give it some kind of cooldown ability, like charge or something. Like it can only charge in a single direction and can't change course. Then if the opponent dodges it, then they only have to deal with it on its default speed? To at least force the zerg to think about how it uses its baneling. Single file speed idea was actually what Foxxan here suggested a while ago... anyone else think it is a good idea? If enough people are thinking about the same idea, it might be good
You mean single line?
That does sound interesting. You can marine-micro out the way aswell, but then its kind of similar to the lurkers attack minus the splash damage from the explosion.
|
On February 10 2014 12:29 thepuppyassassin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2014 23:41 NukeD wrote:On February 09 2014 22:13 S1eth wrote:On February 09 2014 19:03 NukeD wrote:On February 09 2014 14:37 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 09 2014 13:50 Taguchi wrote:
@wolfinthesheep, you gotta establish some kind of baselines for any work to be successful.
Some examples (only a few):
-Designing around a certain mapsize is very problematic when suddenly you think it's cool to allow mechanics that ignore mapsize - you will be left playing balance catch up as a result of that, and very constrained in what is and isn't allowed in your map design for example (sc1 had arbiter recall and nydus, but those were very lategame and very expensive/hard to pull off - compare it to warpgates and, to a lesser extent, sc2 nydus).
-Same goes with incorporating certain types of terrain intended to provide a specific function (eg chokepoint, inaccessible high ground, open flat terrain, wide corridor) and, at the same time, certain abilities that effectively change the function of terrain or circumvent terrain (colossi, blink stalkers, reapers, forcefield, whatever I forget). Think about the kind of effect these abilities have on the variability of army compositions that are effective in particular maps more than others - the protoss deathball is never changing, is it?
-If you're gonna introduce units that are exponentially more useful in a mass vs mass scenario or units that hardcounter harass, you better have the mass vs mass scenario as a design goal and not a result of the cool units. If you really wanted many skirmishes around the map, introducing the colossus or giving concussive shells to the marauder isn't a particularly wise idea, for example.
Innovation is great, as long as you got some fundamental design goals in mind that aren't disrupted by introducing 'cool' elements. I don't know how the sc2 team worked - they've been defending the results of their design choices, such as prevalence of ballfights, so maybe they just executed their vision - this is a very good thing, no matter our personal opinion. But simply going off and being 'innovative' and 'cool' and hoping the stuff you threw at the wall sticks is no way to develop a game, especially a competitive one. Your first two are basically rules after-the-fact. Sure, once a game is out and you know the design, you can say what maps need to look like for the game to function. But you can't say "all RTSes need chokepoints and high ground mechanics", or even "Game maps must be constrained to this". Hell, you can't even say "RTSes must have unit travel constraints". The older C&Cs, Age of Empires, etc. certainly didn't care about terrain or chokepoints. And I know there are some Sci-Fi RTSes out there that allow warps all across the map. And sure, throwing darts on a board isn't very good for game design, but many of the best games of all time came from "Here's a cool idea, let's make it work". Even StarCraft 1 came from that kind of mindset; no one cared about a completely balanced game, because no one played seriously enough for it to matter. They just made an RTS with 3 distinct races, and that was something brand new and exciting. Yeah thats how proffesional video game designers do their work. Get real dude. Eh, yes that's how they do it. What's your problem? His last post kind of makes sense but the thought process over his last few posts and the overall conclusion is what I was comentating against. If you are a designer you make certain rules you will follow later on,, and if you want to implement anything "cool" you should do it by the rules you made earlier. He is making it sound like these guys get paid just to throw out random ideas haphazardly. The result sometimes does seem like it tho. Actually I've recently visited David Kim's office. NO desk, chair, or computer, just a giant dartboard with an image of every unit in the game. Colored darts lay strewn about haphazardly, blue darts for buffs, red for nerfs, and a single white one strangely labeled "free units".When I saw a blue dart buried in the tail of a hydra that day, I knew there would be problems.
I am somewhat pleased he isnt using the beheaded chicken approach that they use on American economy system though. We all know how that turned out..
|
I think they were thinking of alternatives to bane not because of being overpowered but from purely a design stand point? I can attest to the fact that neither I ( Zerg player) nor the terrains I play with think banes are overpowered in the least. I'm concerned for them removing the bane without giving Zerg any compensation. Because I feel right now the bane is needed badly.
|
@Spidermines(the old, that is in the game now)
They dont do any friendly splash sometimes
|
Banelings are one of the few units that I really like from sc2, and I hope you don't change them too much.
|
I believe SC2:Broodwar should be much better. Why make another frankestein?
|
|
|
@Siegetanks
Worth to think about how to fix so they deal their proper dmg(like in bw) under darkswarm, before the tournament in marsch
Also i saw dec videowhich showed that they miss their primary target but hit a unit that is below him. (When shooting beneath a clip to high).
What he didnt show was what is happening if the siegetank shoots at bigger sized units(ultra,dragoon,tank).
I have this feeling, that he will actually hit that primary target cuz the size is big so he hits it on the side and not in the middle like he do when they are on equal ground.
Hope i made myself clear.
I can be totally wrong in that, but i have this feeling
|
yeah !!! python  ))) thx !!!!
|
On February 11 2014 00:29 Foxxan wrote:
@Siegetanks
Worth to think about how to fix so they deal their proper dmg(like in bw) under darkswarm, before the tournament in marsch
Also i saw dec videowhich showed that they miss their primary target but hit a unit that is below him. (When shooting beneath a clip to high).
What he didnt show was what is happening if the siegetank shoots at bigger sized units(ultra,dragoon,tank).
I have this feeling, that he will actually hit that primary target cuz the size is big so he hits it on the side and not in the middle like he do when they are on equal ground.
Hope i made myself clear.
I can be totally wrong in that, but i have this feeling
Yes, this is an indirect unintentional buff to Dark Swarm which should be fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
