|
On February 12 2014 11:58 Brindled wrote:
Has Python been fixed yet? The last time I played, I can get to the close by air base through the narrow ground corridor that used to be just a wall of impassable doodads.
Fixed
|
On February 12 2014 14:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 13:46 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 12 2014 13:33 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 12 2014 11:58 WarpTV wrote:On February 12 2014 11:37 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 12 2014 10:50 WarpTV wrote:On February 12 2014 04:24 Pursuit_ wrote:On February 12 2014 03:54 Whanhee wrote:
I think that one of the problems with banelings, as Gnots says, is that they don't really fit into the BW style and they're just simple attack move units that are just included into your zergling mass.
A change that would make them more microable and interesting is to make their detonation an activated ability with a cast time. A zerg player would have to tell the baneling to detonate and after a second(?) of charging up, then it explodes.
This adds more micro and dynamics to both the zerg player and their opponent. Instead of attack moving, zerg would have to intelligently position them to deny space. The opponent needs to then be careful about movement and needs to focus banelings that can cause significant damage.
This change should make banelings much more interesting to play with while still keeping their ability to bust down fortifications. I feel like Banelings have a ton of versatility beyond just an a-move unit, they can be dropped into mineral lines / onto armies and burrowed to be used as land mines, and they force really interesting / unique counter micro out of their opponent (splitting zerglings / marine / zealots ect vs banelings is very different from how you split vs other forms of AoE). Not to mention they are extremely vulnerable to AoE (tanks / vulture mines / storms / reavers / lurkers / other banelings ect), so you want to keep them well spread in most situations, not a-move them. I feel like the Baneling is one of if not the best designed unit unique to SC2, and that the design has a lot to add to Starbow / RTS games in general. I have to agree, Just to clame they should be remove because they are "just an attack move unit that overlaps," We can say that about fierbats. You just add them to your Marines and A-move them, Also they have a similar role with vultures that overlaps as anti light. So should we just remove them as well? No, no we should not as Fierbats and vultures have different compositions, nor should we remove banelings as it adds a different composition and more varied game play. The logic is bogus and you just don't want to micro against them. Lurkers even work well with banelings. Ling bane can force a terrain to back up when they try a snipe off lurkers. Lurker, ling, bane, scourge mid games, have a ton more micro out of both players than just Luker/ling or ling/bane with scourge. So to continue from my last post with an example here is why the Firebat is important and the Baneling is not. The problem domain is the infamous Zerg rush. Without Firebats Terran would simply just die to ling-allins every time (not so much new maps but the old maps). This was a racial imbalance that needed to be solved some how, now you could just nerf zergling dps but that would complicate things down the line, so the Firebat was invented. The Firebat effectively stops ling-allins and making the game unfun, while not being too powerful in other aspects of combat. The other problem domain is that cracklings under dark-swarm kill your entire bio army without losing a single zergling. Which means as soon as Zerg gets darkswarm, the game is over, and that's no fun is it? Now Terran can do either of two things, make siege tanks, make firebats, and in the more modern meta, plant mines all over the map with late-mech. However if we got rid of Firebats, then every TvZ would devolve into bionic play (bio + mech). This would make the game boring. Firebats allows the SK_Terran strategy of pure bio units and science vessels which means Terran isn't stuck into having to make factories for Tanks and can instead transition into a heavy bio tempo game. Such a simple unit that significantly improves the game by allowing for more strategies. Zerg does not have this problem, Zerg does not have to deal with darkswarm and cracklings, if they did, then the baneling would actually be useful, but they already have the lurker, so maybe not. I am still struggling to find an answer for the Baneling. And when you are looking for a reason to have two units that fulfil the same role you have this problem... grasping for straws On February 12 2014 10:50 WarpTV wrote:
Lurkers even work well with banelings. Ling bane can force a terrain to back up when they try a snipe off lurkers. Lurker, ling, bane, scourge mid games, have a ton more micro out of both players than just Luker/ling or ling/bane with scourge.
The reason I say this is grasping for straws is that the gas that could have been used to force the terran to back up with banelings, could have just been used to make more lurkers meaning the terran couldn't snipe the lurkers in the first place. You can just leap frog the lurkers, which is the same as moving banelings back and forth and shifting lurkers. On February 12 2014 04:24 Pursuit_ wrote:
I feel like Banelings have a ton of versatility beyond just an a-move unit, they can be dropped into mineral lines / onto armies and burrowed to be used as land mines, and they force really interesting / unique counter micro out of their opponent (splitting zerglings / marine / zealots ect vs banelings is very different from how you split vs other forms of AoE). Not to mention they are extremely vulnerable to AoE (tanks / vulture mines / storms / reavers / lurkers / other banelings ect), so you want to keep them well spread in most situations, not a-move them. Any tactic that you can think of with baneling/lurker can be done with just lurkers, because they fufil the same role. You can send lurkers around one way to force terran into a bunch of baneling mines, or you can do the same thing and force them into a lurker wall which achieves the same thing and visa-versa. Lurker drops were common in BW, its not like Banelings suddenly make drops viable again. Drop 2 lurkers into a mineral line and watch the SCV train just simply evaporate, best part is the lurkers are still alive so you can continue to kill buildings and stop the workers from mining. Or you can hide them at the 3rd with hold fire, and as soon as the CC lands and the SCV train comes in, BOOM goodbye all your workers. Right now anything the Baneling can do, the Lurker can do more efficiently, its as if you only make Banelings if you do not have the skill to maneuver Lurkers well, because if you could, they would do more damage than Banelings. You would need such a radical change like if the Baneling instead of doing damage could be eaten to heal/buff their own units, before it would be something that the Zerg actually needed. You just made my point, Fierbats let you have a new unit comp. Banelings do the same. Muta ling baneling.. It has it's own play style that is micro intensive and fragile. It plays compliantly different from ling lurker. Muta ling bane is something you can't do with out the banelings. I think you are getting confused it is not a new composition, it the same composition only with banelings added. Without Banelings you would still have Muta Ling, that doesn't change anything except now you have Banelings in the mix. Muta/Ling behaves almost exactly the same as Muta/Ling/Bane, there's also barely any improvement, I could link you to some of Jaedongs ZvZ's and adding Banelings would have not have improved it, even though there is a lot of ground to be made in the matchup design wise. Firebats enable you to put down 8 raxes and 2 starports, instead of having 5 raxes 2 factories and 1 starport. They enable you to NOT have to build tanks and build science vessels instead. They enable a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT composition and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT gameplay. So if SB broke off into two different versions for one year, exactly the same except one has Banelings in it and the other doesn't, you're saying that you're one hundred percent confident that after one year, nothing at all would be different between the TvZs of those two versions except that where one would have the Muta/Ling, the other would have the more effective Muta/Ling/Bane. You are certain that the existence of the Baneling would not allow the Zerg to do anything at all that he can't already with that single exception. You are also certain that Muta/Ling will be effective enough to be standard, and will not need the boost of Banes to function in SB's updated MUs. Am I reading you correctly? If you're not perfectly confident, then it's way too early to say that Banelings won't open up options for Z the way Firebats do for T. If you are, then I gotta say that's some pretty impressive Nostradamusing at work. This is pretty much how we wasted 4 years of SC2 and look what happened. Some people complained that the Colossus was boring and had no micro potential, other people labelled them as "trolls" and said the Colossus "could be microed", that there was "potential", and there was no way to predict the future. In the end look what happened, the Colossus hasn't changed, its still as boring as it was in Beta. No we didn't develop leet micro skills and it didn't evolve gameplay. This is how I perceive the baneling when the Lurker is already in existence. People will deny and say look the baneling is doing all these wonderful things, and I say yeah... wonderful things that could have been done better with the Lurker. Its like comparing Colossus drops to Reaver drops. I'm not saying I don't want the Baneling, I'm saying the current ideas that people have to improve the baneling are looking at it in the wrong way. You are just thinking of making the Baneling better at doing the Lurkers role than the Lurker. Trust me anything I've seen with the Baneling so far its not like it can't be done better and more interestingly with the Lurker, the only thing the Baneling has going for it is the fact that it doesn't need Lair. I'm sure you wouldn't be seeing many Banelings if you put the Lurker at Hatchery tech.
How about adding overkill to banelings?
|
But there is a good place for banelings in starbow, they could be used for early game zvz. Anti-zergling early game units are like a 'problem domain' in bw zvz, aren't they? One that was never filled in bw.
Also, rolling slow banelings in starbow look really silly.
|
Imo more units = more strategies/possibilites and fun.
You should think about bring back little nerfed Colossus but as a Tier 3 unit and maybe Tempest instead off Scout (WTF is that!? its totally useless) as anti Tank and def whore mass lurk-spine-spore Zerg.
|
On February 12 2014 19:03 heronn wrote:
Imo more units = more strategies/possibilites and fun.
You should think about bring back little nerfed Colossus but as a Tier 3 unit and maybe Tempest instead off Scout (WTF is that!? its totally useless) as anti Tank and def whore mass lurk-spine-spore Zerg.
Both have been tried in the past. Not here anymore  (Not saying a different implementation would not work, but I doubt it).
|
Are there any plans in near future on changing the current macro mechanics back to the macro mechanics of Sc2? They might be a pain in the ass to balance out, but I like them very much because they make each race feel more unique. (I guess those two things go hand in hand)
edit: All in all, starbow is an awesome game. Good job. 
|
On February 12 2014 19:13 Xiphias wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 19:03 heronn wrote:
Imo more units = more strategies/possibilites and fun.
You should think about bring back little nerfed Colossus but as a Tier 3 unit and maybe Tempest instead off Scout (WTF is that!? its totally useless) as anti Tank and def whore mass lurk-spine-spore Zerg. Both have been tried in the past. Not here anymore (Not saying a different implementation would not work, but I doubt it).
So what is the reason for Scout? In what situations is it better than long range Tempest?
Imo possibility to drop Colossus would be very very fun :D
|
The scout had a nice synergy with the old corsair ability. The ability is gone now, but the scout is still here. The corsair will probably get a new ability at some point and hopefully it will bring back a motivation to make scout as well.
I would love the phoenix lift, but let it require an upgrade at the fleet beacon.
|
Fun fact - we tried the Colossus back from late 2013 until about a week before the hype train rolled.
It didn't work, no matter how much we changed it. Either it would be useless due to how easy it was to snipe, or it completely dominated the battlefield.
You have to remember that the Colossus' main weakness is purely strategic. The is no interesting micro or tactics involved in "Snipe with anti air units". There are a lot of interesting composition dynamics, but that is not the goal of StarBow - and it leads to binary outcomes.
Contrast this with highly tactical weaknesses of most BW and StarBow units like: Low range, Friendly fire, Overkill, Immobile while attacking, Minimum range or simply a low base stat (HP, dmg, Speed, attspd ect.). All of these makes battles dynamic because the way to counter them is with positioning and micro rather than pure composition.
"But what if you remove the weakness to anti air?" you ask...
Then it won't be a Colossus anymore. People expect a certain behaviour from a unit that looks like, and is called a Colossus - and we have indeed toyed with the thought of making a completely new Robo unit with inspirations from the Colossus, but still so fundamentally different that it needed a new model and name.
Then the hype train left, and all discussions about this unit was put on hold.
|
While I hate both Colossus and Tempest because of their infinite boredom, I want to remark that one has to decide if he prefers a FUN game or a BALANCED game. Not saying that both isn't possible of course. But the more units get implemented, the harder it is to balance the game.
|
On February 12 2014 19:43 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Fun fact - we tried the Colossus back from late 2013 until about a week before the hype train rolled.
It didn't work, no matter how much we changed it. Either it would be useless due to how easy it was to snipe, or it completely dominated the battlefield.
You have to remember that the Colossus' main weakness is purely strategic. The is no interesting micro or tactics involved in "Snipe with anti air units". There are a lot of interesting composition dynamics, but that is not the goal of StarBow - and it leads to binary outcomes.
Contrast this with highly tactical weaknesses of most BW and StarBow units like: Low range, Friendly fire, Overkill, Immobile while attacking, Minimum range or simply a low base stat (HP, dmg, Speed, attspd ect.). All of these makes battles dynamic because the way to counter them is with positioning and micro rather than pure composition.
"But what if you remove the weakness to anti air?" you ask...
Then it won't be a Colossus anymore. People expect a certain behaviour from a unit that looks like, and is called a Colossus - and we have indeed toyed with the thought of making a completely new Robo unit with inspirations from the Colossus, but still so fundamentally different that it needed a new model and name.
Then the hype train left, and all discussions about this unit was put on hold.
Well atleast the stuff we tried didnt work.
But iam sure there are stuff that could be kind of cool if it got rightly done
|
At least make it so that you can hallucinate colossi.
edit: also, starbow should have swarm hosts (maybe make them slightly stronger than in sc2 though).
|
On February 12 2014 15:35 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 14:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 12 2014 13:46 pure.Wasted wrote:On February 12 2014 13:33 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 12 2014 11:58 WarpTV wrote:On February 12 2014 11:37 sluggaslamoo wrote:On February 12 2014 10:50 WarpTV wrote:On February 12 2014 04:24 Pursuit_ wrote:On February 12 2014 03:54 Whanhee wrote:
I think that one of the problems with banelings, as Gnots says, is that they don't really fit into the BW style and they're just simple attack move units that are just included into your zergling mass.
A change that would make them more microable and interesting is to make their detonation an activated ability with a cast time. A zerg player would have to tell the baneling to detonate and after a second(?) of charging up, then it explodes.
This adds more micro and dynamics to both the zerg player and their opponent. Instead of attack moving, zerg would have to intelligently position them to deny space. The opponent needs to then be careful about movement and needs to focus banelings that can cause significant damage.
This change should make banelings much more interesting to play with while still keeping their ability to bust down fortifications. I feel like Banelings have a ton of versatility beyond just an a-move unit, they can be dropped into mineral lines / onto armies and burrowed to be used as land mines, and they force really interesting / unique counter micro out of their opponent (splitting zerglings / marine / zealots ect vs banelings is very different from how you split vs other forms of AoE). Not to mention they are extremely vulnerable to AoE (tanks / vulture mines / storms / reavers / lurkers / other banelings ect), so you want to keep them well spread in most situations, not a-move them. I feel like the Baneling is one of if not the best designed unit unique to SC2, and that the design has a lot to add to Starbow / RTS games in general. I have to agree, Just to clame they should be remove because they are "just an attack move unit that overlaps," We can say that about fierbats. You just add them to your Marines and A-move them, Also they have a similar role with vultures that overlaps as anti light. So should we just remove them as well? No, no we should not as Fierbats and vultures have different compositions, nor should we remove banelings as it adds a different composition and more varied game play. The logic is bogus and you just don't want to micro against them. Lurkers even work well with banelings. Ling bane can force a terrain to back up when they try a snipe off lurkers. Lurker, ling, bane, scourge mid games, have a ton more micro out of both players than just Luker/ling or ling/bane with scourge. So to continue from my last post with an example here is why the Firebat is important and the Baneling is not. The problem domain is the infamous Zerg rush. Without Firebats Terran would simply just die to ling-allins every time (not so much new maps but the old maps). This was a racial imbalance that needed to be solved some how, now you could just nerf zergling dps but that would complicate things down the line, so the Firebat was invented. The Firebat effectively stops ling-allins and making the game unfun, while not being too powerful in other aspects of combat. The other problem domain is that cracklings under dark-swarm kill your entire bio army without losing a single zergling. Which means as soon as Zerg gets darkswarm, the game is over, and that's no fun is it? Now Terran can do either of two things, make siege tanks, make firebats, and in the more modern meta, plant mines all over the map with late-mech. However if we got rid of Firebats, then every TvZ would devolve into bionic play (bio + mech). This would make the game boring. Firebats allows the SK_Terran strategy of pure bio units and science vessels which means Terran isn't stuck into having to make factories for Tanks and can instead transition into a heavy bio tempo game. Such a simple unit that significantly improves the game by allowing for more strategies. Zerg does not have this problem, Zerg does not have to deal with darkswarm and cracklings, if they did, then the baneling would actually be useful, but they already have the lurker, so maybe not. I am still struggling to find an answer for the Baneling. And when you are looking for a reason to have two units that fulfil the same role you have this problem... grasping for straws On February 12 2014 10:50 WarpTV wrote:
Lurkers even work well with banelings. Ling bane can force a terrain to back up when they try a snipe off lurkers. Lurker, ling, bane, scourge mid games, have a ton more micro out of both players than just Luker/ling or ling/bane with scourge.
The reason I say this is grasping for straws is that the gas that could have been used to force the terran to back up with banelings, could have just been used to make more lurkers meaning the terran couldn't snipe the lurkers in the first place. You can just leap frog the lurkers, which is the same as moving banelings back and forth and shifting lurkers. On February 12 2014 04:24 Pursuit_ wrote:
I feel like Banelings have a ton of versatility beyond just an a-move unit, they can be dropped into mineral lines / onto armies and burrowed to be used as land mines, and they force really interesting / unique counter micro out of their opponent (splitting zerglings / marine / zealots ect vs banelings is very different from how you split vs other forms of AoE). Not to mention they are extremely vulnerable to AoE (tanks / vulture mines / storms / reavers / lurkers / other banelings ect), so you want to keep them well spread in most situations, not a-move them. Any tactic that you can think of with baneling/lurker can be done with just lurkers, because they fufil the same role. You can send lurkers around one way to force terran into a bunch of baneling mines, or you can do the same thing and force them into a lurker wall which achieves the same thing and visa-versa. Lurker drops were common in BW, its not like Banelings suddenly make drops viable again. Drop 2 lurkers into a mineral line and watch the SCV train just simply evaporate, best part is the lurkers are still alive so you can continue to kill buildings and stop the workers from mining. Or you can hide them at the 3rd with hold fire, and as soon as the CC lands and the SCV train comes in, BOOM goodbye all your workers. Right now anything the Baneling can do, the Lurker can do more efficiently, its as if you only make Banelings if you do not have the skill to maneuver Lurkers well, because if you could, they would do more damage than Banelings. You would need such a radical change like if the Baneling instead of doing damage could be eaten to heal/buff their own units, before it would be something that the Zerg actually needed. You just made my point, Fierbats let you have a new unit comp. Banelings do the same. Muta ling baneling.. It has it's own play style that is micro intensive and fragile. It plays compliantly different from ling lurker. Muta ling bane is something you can't do with out the banelings. I think you are getting confused it is not a new composition, it the same composition only with banelings added. Without Banelings you would still have Muta Ling, that doesn't change anything except now you have Banelings in the mix. Muta/Ling behaves almost exactly the same as Muta/Ling/Bane, there's also barely any improvement, I could link you to some of Jaedongs ZvZ's and adding Banelings would have not have improved it, even though there is a lot of ground to be made in the matchup design wise. Firebats enable you to put down 8 raxes and 2 starports, instead of having 5 raxes 2 factories and 1 starport. They enable you to NOT have to build tanks and build science vessels instead. They enable a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT composition and COMPLETELY DIFFERENT gameplay. So if SB broke off into two different versions for one year, exactly the same except one has Banelings in it and the other doesn't, you're saying that you're one hundred percent confident that after one year, nothing at all would be different between the TvZs of those two versions except that where one would have the Muta/Ling, the other would have the more effective Muta/Ling/Bane. You are certain that the existence of the Baneling would not allow the Zerg to do anything at all that he can't already with that single exception. You are also certain that Muta/Ling will be effective enough to be standard, and will not need the boost of Banes to function in SB's updated MUs. Am I reading you correctly? If you're not perfectly confident, then it's way too early to say that Banelings won't open up options for Z the way Firebats do for T. If you are, then I gotta say that's some pretty impressive Nostradamusing at work. This is pretty much how we wasted 4 years of SC2 and look what happened. Some people complained that the Colossus was boring and had no micro potential, other people labelled them as "trolls" and said the Colossus "could be microed", that there was "potential", and there was no way to predict the future. In the end look what happened, the Colossus hasn't changed, its still as boring as it was in Beta. No we didn't develop leet micro skills and it didn't evolve gameplay. This is how I perceive the baneling when the Lurker is already in existence. People will deny and say look the baneling is doing all these wonderful things, and I say yeah... wonderful things that could have been done better with the Lurker. Its like comparing Colossus drops to Reaver drops. I'm not saying I don't want the Baneling, I'm saying the current ideas that people have to improve the baneling are looking at it in the wrong way. You are just thinking of making the Baneling better at doing the Lurkers role than the Lurker. Trust me anything I've seen with the Baneling so far its not like it can't be done better and more interestingly with the Lurker, the only thing the Baneling has going for it is the fact that it doesn't need Lair. I'm sure you wouldn't be seeing many Banelings if you put the Lurker at Hatchery tech. How about adding overkill to banelings?
I think that wouldn't work.
We could try but the thing is, Scourges have overkill because they are very cheap for what they do and without overkill Scourges will majority of time trade very efficiently against other flying units, so to prevent that, they added overkill and you have to clone them to be as effective as before.
Now, Banelings are suicide units like Scourges, but are also quite different. They don't do huge chunk of damage, they have 100% splash but do little damage for suicide units against anything but light, against what they do moderate damage. For what they do, unlike Scourges, Banelings are quite expensive. They are fragile, you have to have a lot of them because most of the time a lot of them will die before connecting to the army and the ones that connect will of course die for sure to deal damage. Unlike Scourges they don't trade efficiently at all against the enemy if he is microing. Banelings are one of those units that force you to micro better when your opponent is microing better because when he spreads better you have to spread Banelings better and that is great for a unit, but whatever you do and however good your micro is, if opponent is good at spreading you won't ever trade efficiently with Banelings. Now adding overkill to that will just make them miserable.
This is just my thinking process and don't get me wrong, I am not against changes like this, but I am just thinking that it won't be good change for Banelings.
I see people are still talking about Lurkers and Banelings overlapping roles, I don't think this is true at all, as many have mentioned already.
There are things that Lurkers do better and some that Banelings do better. Since Starbow is a lot slower game than SC2, I definitely see Baneling Carpet Bombing possible, I also see them being better at harassing, Carpet Bombing them in the mineral line. Lurkers are slower, you have to drop them, then get into position, burrow them, and if enemy doesn't see them by now(which he will most of the time), you will shoot once and kill like 5-6 workers and then he will pull workers away. Of course there is possibility that you will kill more of them, but against Baneling drops, he has to react really fast or all of his workers are going to die in a second.
Also as someone else said, Banelings are a lot better than Lurkers in the offense, Lurkers are zone-control units, they are a lot better defensive unit than Banelings are. Both Baneling mines and Lurker holds have great potential and both are different from each other. Banelings don't really care about Science Vessels while Lurkers don't care about few Tanks when charging up in the army. Banelings are also quite weak against any AoE, where Lurkers have 140 HP.
They really have quite a few differences so I am for leaving them both in the game since they don't break the game and add up quite a bit of diversity.
|
On February 12 2014 19:42 Xiphias wrote:
The scout had a nice synergy with the old corsair ability. The ability is gone now, but the scout is still here. The corsair will probably get a new ability at some point and hopefully it will bring back a motivation to make scout as well.
I would love the phoenix lift, but let it require an upgrade at the fleet beacon.
Scout is bad designed overall, it was a most useless unit in BW <Corsair is way to go but imo Toss air should have more specialist units (like Tempest - slow move + long range slow attack like Tanks, Viod Ray - exp killer) and possibilities like - air all in or all air - Cors/Void + Carr/Temp + Arbiter :D
...also i think many players would be happy to see Dark Archons again
Only one unit and one ability should never be added to SB: Mother Ship and force field, rest imo are should be welcome when balanced or redesigned but its only my opinion - more units more fun and less stagnate.
btw Great Job
|
On February 12 2014 20:03 Grumbels wrote:
edit: also, starbow should have swarm hosts (maybe make them slightly stronger than in sc2 though).
Aw, heeeeeell no!
|
On February 12 2014 12:18 Schopenhauer17 wrote:
One question concerning the upcoming ladder:
- how will it look like/work?
Is there a way to implement a match making system?
Sorry for beeing anoying. Does anyone have more insight?
|
@BUG
While playing AI TvP, I planted mines somewhere near Ps expo and when i lured stalkers and DTs (no detection yet and I didnt use scan), the stalkers died to mines but DTs just walk through the mines. Any solution to that?
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
Thank you for not sticking the Collosus in this game.
Now, I don't know what abilities you'd give them or anything. What chance the sexy Dark Archon making a return or do you feel Protoss has a full enough compliment of units at present?
|
On February 13 2014 01:08 elmerpogs wrote:
@BUG
While playing AI TvP, I planted mines somewhere near Ps expo and when i lured stalkers and DTs (no detection yet and I didnt use scan), the stalkers died to mines but DTs just walk through the mines. Any solution to that?
Mines do not detect dt's in Starbow. It is intentional. Don't remember why atm. Kabel had some reasons for it.
|
On February 13 2014 01:08 elmerpogs wrote:
@BUG
While playing AI TvP, I planted mines somewhere near Ps expo and when i lured stalkers and DTs (no detection yet and I didnt use scan), the stalkers died to mines but DTs just walk through the mines. Any solution to that?
Spider mines are not supposed to activate on stealthed units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
42724
424
207
EPT
