Irradiate is fine. It's one of the only counters, (probably the only one) to mass mutalisk. It needs to remain as is, and it also can be micro'd against by good players.
If you touch that, mass muta will be too powerful, especially with 12+ unit selection in a game like this...which would mean you'd then have to nerf unit selection...etc, it would become a slippery slope of changes that are unnecessary.
To sum up: you can micro vs irradiate with practice (just like Brood War) and mass muta with greater selection limit than 12 arguably makes mutalisks even more powerful in this than Brood War. So while irradiate with smartcast is powerful, 12+ units in group selection with Brood War style mutalisks is also powerful and they seem to balance each other out.
Also, there are a lot of Brood War noobies playing Starbow that came only from SC2 and don't realize scourge are in this game -_-
On January 20 2014 10:34 NukeD wrote: Im just gonna put this post here because I find it to be very interesting (AnteZ I hope you dont mind me taking the liberty to do so):
On January 20 2014 03:56 AnteZ wrote: Hello, thanks for this great mod. Your effort is very appreciated. I have taken another look at the problem of clumped movement and I have come up with a new approach (to my knowledge) to spread out units while moving. The basic idea is to have every unit followed by a neutral unit. The follower will take up space, and cause the other units in the clump to spread out.
I have hacked together a small demonstration. You can see the result here. Or search for "spread spread out movement" in the eu custom games (not arcade). I should say that the follower should be made invisible in a serious implementation.
Its a very dirty hack. I made it in 15 minutes and I have close to no experience with the editor. Here is what I did: I put some marines and neutral zerglings onto the map. Then I modified the zerglings to have a small little sphere as model. I set its push priority to 100 and its movement speed to 2.3. After that, I created a trigger that orders each zergling to follow one marine upon startup.
As a result, the silky smooth movements of the sc2 engine are mostly preserved, while the clumping is avoided. Further more, the units formation is never the same, although in my tests a preference for an arrow shaped patterns has shone through (similar tobird formations).
Let me know what you think and if you would consider implementing something like this into starbow.
I think that would have too much of a performance impact. Not just because it would essentially double the amount units on the map at all times, but also because of all the triggers that would have to run every time a unit is created.
Also, props to the Starbow devs for minimizing luck factors and all-ins. Although, I think the game being close to Brood War is more of a factor for all-ins already inherently being weaker in this.
What this means is just like Brood War, more skilled players have opportunities to completely crush and own weaker players through good multi-tasking. All-ins, especially Protoss, are way too prevalent in SC2 and we all see the effects of them as spectators - it makes for a game where not always the best player wins, and sometimes someone ridiculously less skilled than the other player is able to win (oracles and blink all-ins in HOTS).
On January 20 2014 08:05 zlefin wrote: hmm, while I'll give it a good try when 2.1 comes out; the more I read, the more it seems like starbow goes against my preferred design philosophies; too much busywork rather than strategy work. I prefer strategy and tactics over apm.
SB has yes more APM, Multitasking required ALONG with strategy, you really need to execute your engagements well and really well in order to win battle. That's what defines Starcraft. (strategy+mechanics+execution) .
Put is as this, Hardowrking players who practices the game a lot = higher reward / higher % to win. Rather than be it a strategy 'only' game, And even a mediocre player can copy and memorize builds in no time and execute it ease and pray that he has a better build than his opponent. Thats what happening in sc2 now.
Build Order win is no fun to play or watch at all. But since its your own preference, can't do nothing a about it.
I never said I liked build order wins; build order wins are a sign of a poorly designed game as well. Do not lie, and do not strawman what the other person is saying. There's plenty of room for skilled players to do better than unskilled players without adding busywork to the game.
On January 20 2014 08:05 zlefin wrote: hmm, while I'll give it a good try when 2.1 comes out; the more I read, the more it seems like starbow goes against my preferred design philosophies; too much busywork rather than strategy work. I prefer strategy and tactics over apm.
SB has yes more APM, Multitasking required ALONG with strategy, you really need to execute your engagements well and really well in order to win battle. That's what defines Starcraft. (strategy+mechanics+execution) .
Put is as this, Hardowrking players who practices the game a lot = higher reward / higher % to win. Rather than be it a strategy 'only' game, And even a mediocre player can copy and memorize builds in no time and execute it ease and pray that he has a better build than his opponent. Thats what happening in sc2 now.
Build Order win is no fun to play or watch at all. But since its your own preference, can't do nothing a about it.
I never said I liked build order wins; build order wins are a sign of a poorly designed game as well. Do not lie, and do not strawman what the other person is saying. There's plenty of room for skilled players to do better than unskilled players without adding busywork to the game.
I don't think you truly understand what makes SC the game that it is -_-. It certainly isn't "strategy." If you're not into a mechanical game, that's too bad <3.
On January 20 2014 08:05 zlefin wrote: hmm, while I'll give it a good try when 2.1 comes out; the more I read, the more it seems like starbow goes against my preferred design philosophies; too much busywork rather than strategy work. I prefer strategy and tactics over apm.
SB has yes more APM, Multitasking required ALONG with strategy, you really need to execute your engagements well and really well in order to win battle. That's what defines Starcraft. (strategy+mechanics+execution) .
Put is as this, Hardowrking players who practices the game a lot = higher reward / higher % to win. Rather than be it a strategy 'only' game, And even a mediocre player can copy and memorize builds in no time and execute it ease and pray that he has a better build than his opponent. Thats what happening in sc2 now.
Build Order win is no fun to play or watch at all. But since its your own preference, can't do nothing a about it.
I never said I liked build order wins; build order wins are a sign of a poorly designed game as well. Do not lie, and do not strawman what the other person is saying. There's plenty of room for skilled players to do better than unskilled players without adding busywork to the game.
I don't think you truly understand what makes SC the game that it is -_-. It certainly isn't "strategy." If you're not into a mechanical game, that's too bad <3.
there is no "correct" opinion on what "makes starcraft starcraft." BW is BW, SC2 is SC2, they're different and different people like different aspects of each game. some people like both games, some people think neither game is perfect. regardless, LOTS of people do like the idea of more focus on strategy. i see people break out this nonsense argument that "strategy is/isn't what SC is about" all the time, and it's quite annoying and frankly rude to discredit people's ideas about what makes a fun gaming experience by appealing to some invisible, made-up doctrine of "what SC should be"
On January 20 2014 08:05 zlefin wrote: hmm, while I'll give it a good try when 2.1 comes out; the more I read, the more it seems like starbow goes against my preferred design philosophies; too much busywork rather than strategy work. I prefer strategy and tactics over apm.
This is a long time proved logical fallacy. High APM requirement does not reduce the ability to win through strategy or tactics.
The term Bonjwa originally existed for SaviOr, a player who had very low apm. He won a lot due to his strategies and tactics that were literally 5 years ahead of his time.
Stork is one of the big four, he also has very low apm and did better in BW than SC2.
Another of the best players to ever have existed, iloveoov, had very low apm.
On January 20 2014 08:05 zlefin wrote: hmm, while I'll give it a good try when 2.1 comes out; the more I read, the more it seems like starbow goes against my preferred design philosophies; too much busywork rather than strategy work. I prefer strategy and tactics over apm.
SB has yes more APM, Multitasking required ALONG with strategy, you really need to execute your engagements well and really well in order to win battle. That's what defines Starcraft. (strategy+mechanics+execution) .
Put is as this, Hardowrking players who practices the game a lot = higher reward / higher % to win. Rather than be it a strategy 'only' game, And even a mediocre player can copy and memorize builds in no time and execute it ease and pray that he has a better build than his opponent. Thats what happening in sc2 now.
Build Order win is no fun to play or watch at all. But since its your own preference, can't do nothing a about it.
I never said I liked build order wins; build order wins are a sign of a poorly designed game as well. Do not lie, and do not strawman what the other person is saying. There's plenty of room for skilled players to do better than unskilled players without adding busywork to the game.
I don't think you truly understand what makes SC the game that it is -_-. It certainly isn't "strategy." If you're not into a mechanical game, that's too bad <3.
there is no "correct" opinion on what "makes starcraft starcraft." BW is BW, SC2 is SC2, they're different and different people like different aspects of each game. some people like both games, some people think neither game is perfect. regardless, LOTS of people do like the idea of more focus on strategy. i see people break out this nonsense argument that "strategy is/isn't what SC is about" all the time, and it's quite annoying and frankly rude to discredit people's ideas about what makes a fun gaming experience by appealing to some invisible, made-up doctrine of "what SC should be"
It's not annoying or rude at all...SC is primarily a game of execution - sure you can remove execution by including MBS/UUS, but the game at the highest level is all about how you execute - the efficiency and speed of execution (meaning mechanics).
There is a wonderful post by Falling that explains that mechanics are not some "hindrance" to strategy as most low level players who want a "cerebral game" seem to think - they are actually enablers of more complex strategies built upon your ability to execute. This isn't a turn based game or a card game - it's real time - and this changes everything. At the highest level...the focus is on mechanics and reads...I mean sure you can also say the game is a lot of things.
You wanna know what I don't understand? This misbegotten mentality that somehow mechanics are BAD. That feels like a big cop-out to me.
If he doesn't want to play Starbow because it seems like too much of a mechanical sink, then that's fine - but I think he might consider recognizing that it's a big part of what makes this game what it is and it's not going away...At the highest level it's always been what SC is about. And again - that's not a bad thing.
Mechanics are thought 'bad' by people who are 'creative' but for the most part are terrible players whose understanding of the game is limited to stealing builds (often allins) off other people and executing them. The small execution requirement still isn't enough for them though, they want those ladder points.
Bitterness aside, I hate this lack of recognition of that mechanics can be FUN too. Blazing along at high APM, while making reads and keeping your eye on your minimap isn't just necessary to be a great Starcraft player but can also be a really satisfying feeling.
Now by all means, you don't have to want a game that mechanically demanding, but don't advocate a dilution of a beautiful (and these days godamn near unique) aspect of the game. There are plenty of other games out there, even within the RTS genre that should sate your desires, there aren't really any modern RtS games that play like SC
I'm going to ignore the foolish haters who don't understand how gaming works. As to the rest; I was quite fond of wc3; and played a good deal of ladder back in wc3 and tft. But let's not get caught up in this discussion and leave this thread for focus on starbow, ok?
On January 20 2014 11:41 zlefin wrote: I'm going to ignore the foolish haters who don't understand how gaming works. As to the rest; I was quite fond of wc3; and played a good deal of ladder back in wc3 and tft. But let's not get caught up in this discussion and leave this thread for focus on starbow, ok?
Well, I'm sorry you don't like that part of the mod. But I agree, Starbow's the shit!
You can have your preferences, you might like rap, I'm into rock. It's when you go 'oh I like rock music too, but I think it might be better without guitars' that I'll respond.
Im excited and apprehensive with Starbow, it is cool as hell ATM, hope it continues. Showed my friend it and he got hooked, with this new patch he can play with me on Arcade (great move btw)
On January 20 2014 11:15 Qwyn wrote: Savior has quite decent APM -_-.
200-230 apm is not high by any standards, and he was definitely held back by it. His amazing brain more than made up for it though.
The Bisu build was a direct attack on SaviOr's mechanical deficiency and had an extremely high multitask requirement. Which is why when the Bisu build came out, the only person that could actually win with it was Bisu. Also other Zergs didn't struggle against it as much as SaviOr did because they had better mechanics.
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 January 20 2014 08:05 zlefin wrote: hmm, while I'll give it a good try when 2.1 comes out; the more I read, the more it seems like starbow goes against my preferred design philosophies; too much busywork rather than strategy work. I prefer strategy and tactics over apm.
SB has yes more APM, Multitasking required ALONG with strategy, you really need to execute your engagements well and really well in order to win battle. That's what defines Starcraft. (strategy+mechanics+execution) .
Put is as this, Hardowrking players who practices the game a lot = higher reward / higher % to win. Rather than be it a strategy 'only' game, And even a mediocre player can copy and memorize builds in no time and execute it ease and pray that he has a better build than his opponent. Thats what happening in sc2 now.
Build Order win is no fun to play or watch at all. But since its your own preference, can't do nothing a about it.
I never said I liked build order wins; build order wins are a sign of a poorly designed game as well. Do not lie, and do not strawman what the other person is saying. There's plenty of room for skilled players to do better than unskilled players without adding busywork to the game.
Starbow isn't as hard as BW in some aspects. The developers kept in the unlimited control groups, so players with less apm can manage their armies more efficiently. The players with more mechanical skill will have an advantage for sure, but that should be the case anyways.
EPT
