Starbow - Page 274

On March 22 2014 05:33 frontliner2 wrote:
Mt friends and I are totally new to this and in between games we now decide in half an hour we play some starbow.I want to ask,. if I go to custom games and fill in Starbow in the search field, how do I know it;s the official unit settings etc, and not some scrub uploading a shitty map called starbow?

Thanks in advance.

On March 21 2014 21:09 Laertes wrote:


Maybe this is because there aren't enough good players though in Starbow. Remember this is what people mean when they say in BW you "fight the UI" but in Starbow you merely fight your opponent. I don't know, maybe starbow should make it so that there is a lot more APM in the macro cycle. How does one do this while keeping macro from being stupid? I can think of two things.

A) We can redesign all the macro mechanics
B) We can decrease the payoff of the current macro mechanics.

I can't see B working any further due to diminishing returns on usefulness, but I'd want to suggest something for the current macro mechanics. The problem lies however in how very dangerous it is to change macro mechanics. A lot of ideas just don't work and they are a very narrow concept as long as you have one
Like Chronoboost which literally needs to be nerfed to the ground to be on par with more narrow and less dynamic macro mechanics. That said I do think Chronoboost does it's job in that it speeds up the game relative to BW and allows a difficult macro cycle. With that in mind, maybe we should be enhancing the macro mechanics so that you
DO need to hit every inject,
you do need to hit every Chronoboost to not fall behind. I would go to the point of saying that we can make the game faster and increase the efficiency of Terran and Zerg cheese by making all macro mechanics essentially the same(A Chronoboost and increase building production efficiency.)

I'm not sure how this would play out if we extended Chronoboost and overcharge to speed up building production. It might just change the meta completely, and it would give each race a harder macro cycle without a player having to fight against the UI. In conclusion, we still have many options to make macro harder without imposing UI restrictions....we just have to be sure that's what we want.

One more thing, a lot of people are diametrically opposed to imposing UI restrictions, that's fine because UI restrictions are not good. There are alternative ways to make games harder and get more action, so UI restrictions are not necessary. Even so don't confuse restrictive with harder. Though they coincide they are not the same animal and this goes both ways, don't complain that if macro is changed like this it would be bad cause it makes it necessary to have good macro. The worse player always loses in starbow anyway, so a change with this aim in mind would in fact only make the player have another dimension to get better and does so without requiring the player to need the UI.

One peculiarity of this system of making Chronoboost and Overcharge affecting construction is that Zerg may turn out assymetrical to Terran and Protoss. I propose that we should increase assymetry further by making Terran's macromechanics require an external "Macro hub" so that it can be sniped. I think we should have done this a while ago.

/discuss

On March 24 2014 03:24 Archerofaiur wrote:


You add decision making to macro mechanics while keeping the emphasis on mechanical skill. This decision making should be economic advantage vs economic advantage.


Ah that brings me back to my old macro days

On March 24 2014 19:50 Tuczniak wrote:
Nice video. I said it before, but this should be played in SB tournament downtime.

On March 21 2014 21:09 Laertes wrote:


Maybe this is because there aren't enough good players though in Starbow. Remember this is what people mean when they say in BW you "fight the UI" but in Starbow you merely fight your opponent. I don't know, maybe starbow should make it so that there is a lot more APM in the macro cycle. How does one do this while keeping macro from being stupid? I can think of two things.

A) We can redesign all the macro mechanics
B) We can decrease the payoff of the current macro mechanics.

I can't see B working any further due to diminishing returns on usefulness, but I'd want to suggest something for the current macro mechanics. The problem lies however in how very dangerous it is to change macro mechanics. A lot of ideas just don't work and they are a very narrow concept as long as you have one
Like Chronoboost which literally needs to be nerfed to the ground to be on par with more narrow and less dynamic macro mechanics. That said I do think Chronoboost does it's job in that it speeds up the game relative to BW and allows a difficult macro cycle. With that in mind, maybe we should be enhancing the macro mechanics so that you
DO need to hit every inject,
you do need to hit every Chronoboost to not fall behind. I would go to the point of saying that we can make the game faster and increase the efficiency of Terran and Zerg cheese by making all macro mechanics essentially the same(A Chronoboost and increase building production efficiency.)

I'm not sure how this would play out if we extended Chronoboost and overcharge to speed up building production. It might just change the meta completely, and it would give each race a harder macro cycle without a player having to fight against the UI. In conclusion, we still have many options to make macro harder without imposing UI restrictions....we just have to be sure that's what we want.

One more thing, a lot of people are diametrically opposed to imposing UI restrictions, that's fine because UI restrictions are not good. There are alternative ways to make games harder and get more action, so UI restrictions are not necessary. Even so don't confuse restrictive with harder. Though they coincide they are not the same animal and this goes both ways, don't complain that if macro is changed like this it would be bad cause it makes it necessary to have good macro. The worse player always loses in starbow anyway, so a change with this aim in mind would in fact only make the player have another dimension to get better and does so without requiring the player to need the UI.

One peculiarity of this system of making Chronoboost and Overcharge affecting construction is that Zerg may turn out assymetrical to Terran and Protoss. I propose that we should increase assymetry further by making Terran's macromechanics require an external "Macro hub" so that it can be sniped. I think we should have done this a while ago.

/discuss

On January 20 2014 12:16 Cascade wrote:
Sorry for driveby posting (95 pages! :o ). I just had a thought about a couple of macro mechanic that potentially could be cool. Not sure if it's new, but I haven't seen it mentioned. Maybe I can just drop them here and you can pick them up if interested.

1) Almost all macro mechanics are related to how fast things build. Which is fine, but it is not the only thing in unit production. Specially, the price is very central, and isn't really being touched. So point is to allow one or several of the raced to get units cheaper. For example:
a) Terran can "recycle". An action done by [insert unit or building] after a unit (and/or structure?) is built, and you get a partial refund. It can even be a piece of scrap being thrown out of the building (if it is upgraded to recycle maybe?) that another little wall-E guy (or scv...) can run around and collect. Maybe make them expire after a set time (which can be short or long I guess, depending on how where you want the skill-limit to be).
b) The option of building things cheaper, but slower. Or equivalently building things faster but pay more. This can go for any of the three races I guess. Would create interesting dynamics potentially, allowing people to panic-build defense, or slowly build up units cheaply giving you plenty of leftover things to pump into eco or whatever. Allowing this for workers as well can be interesting I guess...

2) Having "macro-combos". That is, abilities that get more powerful when you chain them together one after the other. For example spawn larva could give one larva first inject, 2 larva second inject, if done on the same hatchery within a fix time after the previous one is done, then up to a maximum of maybe 4 larva per inject or something. This will separate the skill at the very top A LOT. "Anyone" can keep up decent injects with the occasional hickup, but only jaedong can line all of them up throughout a game. In current sc2, that will give jaedong 5 extra larva over 10 minutes, but if the chobo loses his charge regularly, and jaedong maintains it, the difference will be much larger. This also allows for more effective harass, where disturbing your opponent enough to lose his combo (or even kill the queen!) will do a lot of damage. Can be used for essentailly any skill for any race I guess (and maybe even bonus if you use two different skills together?).

Cheers, that's all from me for now. I enjoy watching the videos btw, thanks, good job!

On March 24 2014 20:52 Xiphias wrote:
New Husky cast!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwTPZ3kt4ao

On March 25 2014 04:12 Zhadez10 wrote:
Cascade those are some cool ideas