EPTStarbow - Page 172
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
GoShox
United States1835 Posts
| ||
|
NukeD
Croatia1612 Posts
Btw are you the guy who handed his ass to Artosis yesterday? EDIT: I think I messed up the asshanding part. | ||
|
Daumen
Germany1073 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OX1bXB5.png) I also noticed the that the Andromeda island expansions have no blocking Mineral Patches, I think they used to be there in bw, right? and the Destructible Blocking things near the nats are not destructible here, after you "destroy" them they still block any ground movement. | ||
|
.swz.
73 Posts
| ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
| ||
|
Season
United States301 Posts
On February 12 2014 08:11 SCST wrote: There's a bug at the chokes for (I think) bluestorm 2.0 . . . Artosis mentioned it on stream. Tanks can't get through the choke but Dragoons can. That has been fixed as of today! | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Bug fixes + Show Spoiler + - Just some minor things Balance adjustements + Show Spoiler + - Vulture life reduced from 80 to 70. - Overseer speed upgrade increases movement speed from 2.3 to 2.8 Explanation: + Show Spoiler + The new Spider mine is much more powerful than the old one. Vultures are already much stronger in Starbow compared to BW, due to the SC2 engine. We discussed different ways to balance this, and we decided to try a Vulture with slightly less life. It will still be able to roam the map, control terrain, harass, do hit and run attacks, but will be slightly worse in direct engagements. (Where the new mine is more useful instead.) Overseer upgrade now makes if almost as fast as upgraded Overlords were in BW. Earlier, Overseers were much slower, which made it harder for Zerg to play vs Spider mines. With this new mine in the game, we think it is fair that Zerg gets a buff in this area. | ||
|
Daumen
Germany1073 Posts
| ||
|
Jermman
Canada174 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9366 Posts
On February 12 2014 08:36 Jermman wrote: This is an awesome mod. Really enjoying this compared to regular sc2 ladder. When is the sb ladder coming out? Soon..  | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Also, are arbiters going to be looked at? Recall doesn't work like bw (there's a delay so rather than the recall casting instantly and then the units being transported later independent of the arbiter, the arbiter itself charges the recall and if it dies during the charge the recall doesn't go off) It means Terran can easily defend recall with just turrets now, and it's very difficult for Protoss to pressure T late game. Also, stasis is pretty weak right now. The casting again has a timer, and the effective range seems lower. EMP is also very accurate and cancels the stasis charge. Arbiters have a tendency to die rather than casting spells. What with EMP getting buffed from BW, I don't see the logic behind arbiter spells getting nerfed like this. The reason Recall is weaker in Starbow is due to the addition of Warp gates. They are a big late game boost for Protoss that was not present in BW. Arbiter + Warp Prism allows P to teleport both existing units and newly created ones to a location. We did not know how much this would affect lategame PvT. Recall currently has a 16 unit limit. In BW there was no limit. All units in a large area were teleported to the Arbiter. In Starbow, Protoss has Rift in the early game, which allows five ground units to be teleported to the Nexus. It seems more clean to let both teleport abilities have a unit limit. (Since Rift needs a unit limit for balance purposes.) Stasis field and Recall both have a casting delay. A charge up animation is played, similar to a Battlecruiser who uses Yamato cannon. Half a year ago, almost all spells in Starbow were given a similar cast delay of 1-2 seconds, as a way to test how it affected spellcasting and micro. Only Stasis and Recall still have them left. We will look into this too. Recall might be increased to 20-24 units. Maybe the delays can be removed. Perhaps Stasis field can affect more units in a larger area. We generally look at how spells worked in BW, as a guideline for our balance work, then makes adjustements where we find it necessary. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On February 11 2014 21:00 Grumbels wrote: Banelings aren't universally hated for ZvZ in SC2. Effort vs DRG on Tal'darim was one of the best games ever. I would even be okay with Starbow outright copying early-game ZvZ, while making banelings useless in the rest of the match-ups. Friendly fire is a good concept in general, but for units like banelings and hellions it's simply too user-unfriendly. If you have one baneling in your army and a cloaked ghost walks up and snipes the baneling, your entire army will explode. And if someone drops a Zealot in the middle of a clump of Siege Tanks, your entire army will explode. I don't see any difference. On February 11 2014 21:08 Ramiz1989 wrote: That also Means that Banelings would be pretty bad with Zerglings and Ultras, and they are made that way, they should have something to tank for them so they could suicide and not get wasted. So this change is bad on the grounds that Banelings are intrinsically a 1A unit? Lol OK. Ignoring for the moment that you're not painting the unit in a very positive light, there is such a thing as flanking, you know. Not to say that this suggestion is fantastic, but these are some shoddy counter-arguments you guys are dishing out. If "100% splash" is no good, though, here are some alternate suggestions in a similar vein. Give Banelings a new ability, "Combustion On/Off." Then either a Baneling with Combustion Off will deal 0 damage when it dies while Combustion On deals higher-than-current damage with FF, or a Baneling with Combustion Off will deal less-than-current damage with no FF while a Baneling with Combustion On will deal higher-than-current damage with FF. Either way, split-second micro by the Zerg is encouraged to maximize damage output/minimize casualties. Just throwing these out there. | ||
|
Vejita00
United States11 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On February 12 2014 09:08 pure.Wasted wrote: And if someone drops a Zealot in the middle of a clump of Siege Tanks, your entire army will explode. I don't see any difference. So this change is bad on the grounds that Banelings are intrinsically a 1A unit? Lol OK. Ignoring for the moment that you're not painting the unit in a very positive light, there is such a thing as flanking, you know. Not to say that this suggestion is fantastic, but these are some shoddy counter-arguments you guys are dishing out. If "100% splash" is no good, though, here are some alternate suggestions in a similar vein. Give Banelings a new ability, "Combustion On/Off." Then either a Baneling with Combustion Off will deal 0 damage when it dies while Combustion On deals higher-than-current damage with FF, or a Baneling with Combustion Off will deal less-than-current damage with no FF while a Baneling with Combustion On will deal higher-than-current damage with FF. Either way, split-second micro by the Zerg is encouraged to maximize damage output/minimize casualties. Just throwing these out there. I think the biggest mistake that many game designers make is not thinking about "problem domains". This mentality is completely evident in the current designers of SC2 and most if not all RTS games. Most units are designed from a bottom-up approach, come up with a cool design, and then see where it fits in. This is great for marketing, but its terrible for gameplay. BW used a top-down approach for a lot of their units (maybe not all). This is obvious from the fact that each race has a unit for every role, unlike SC2. Within each units design you could see that there was a specific role-oriented design process. Each race is not so different that there isn't a unit that can fill a role, they just have their own unique flavour. In SC2 there are clear gaps where there are no units that can fill a particular role, and instead uses racial traits such as Zerg attrition to make up for it instead, unfortunately this makes the game flow very haphazard, and very difficult if not impossible to balance. Obviously they were going for something but weren't able to achieve it, its like a GO game where every 30 seconds you can put down an extra white piece, but black can kill two pieces at once, looks cool, impossible to balance and doesn't actually improve the game. The biggest fear for the designers of using a top-down approach, is that the baneling may actually be completely worthless from this perspective. This issue would harp all the way back from the initial design process of WoL and we would have to start from back there. Maybe people should have a think about whether the baneling should actually be a unit that should actually be in the game, rather than trying to fix something that may be completely broke no matter what. Sure we may find something for the baneling model, but if anything I think we should consider completely remaking it and fulfilling a problem domain that actually exists for the zerg. | ||
|
Jermman
Canada174 Posts
| ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
On February 12 2014 09:48 sluggaslamoo wrote: I think the biggest mistake that many game designers make is not thinking about "problem domains". This mentality is completely evident in the current designers of SC2 and most if not all RTS games. Most units are designed from a bottom-up approach, come up with a cool design, and then see where it fits in. This is great for marketing, but its terrible for gameplay. BW used a top-down approach for a lot of their units (maybe not all). This is obvious from the fact that each race has a unit for every role, unlike SC2. Within each units design you could see that there was a specific role-oriented design process. Each race is not so different that there isn't a unit that can fill a role, they just have their own unique flavour. In SC2 there are clear gaps where there are no units that can fill a particular role, and instead uses racial traits such as Zerg attrition to make up for it instead, unfortunately this makes the game flow very haphazard, and very difficult if not impossible to balance. Obviously they were going for something but weren't able to achieve it, its like a GO game where every 30 seconds you can put down an extra white piece, but black can kill two pieces at once, looks cool, impossible to balance and doesn't actually improve the game. The biggest fear for the designers of using a top-down approach, is that the baneling may actually be completely worthless from this perspective. This issue would harp all the way back from the initial design process of WoL and we would have to start from back there. Maybe people should have a think about whether the baneling should actually be a unit that should actually be in the game, rather than trying to fix something that may be completely broke no matter what. Sure we may find something for the baneling model, but if anything I think we should consider completely remaking it and fulfilling a problem domain that actually exists for the zerg. Very in-depth and intelligent thoughts. However . . . There is another aspect of this situation that the developers must consider. Simply put: accessibility of this game to Starcraft 2 fans. A decent number of Starcraft 2 units must be in this game, somehow. Even if they are redesigned to an extent. That being said - I have no problem with these units being quite specialized or unique in their function (to avoid balance issues as you mentioned). Special builds with these units incorporated would do much to spice things up and create enjoyment for people who are wanting to see something different. The untis don't have to be behave the exact same as SC2. They can be adapted. Look at the Viking for example. The developers did an amazing job altering the unit. It's used in every matchup, keeps most of it's SC2 characteristics, but is slightly different so as to offer depth and exploration of new strategies. In the end, I am certain that Starbow's success is overwhelming due to the game being a healthy mix of Broodwar and SC2, rather than being a Brood War clone. If almost all the SC2 units are taken out, then this simply takes us back in time. That's all well and good for those who want it, but we've already had Brood War 2.0 in the SC2 engine. And it didn't catch on with the community. People don't want to play the exact same strategies from 10 years ago with the exact same units. They want something new to explore. If keeping these units in the game means working through some potential balance issues, the developers ought to do it. It's worth it in the long run. | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On February 12 2014 09:48 sluggaslamoo wrote: I think the biggest mistake that many game designers make is not thinking about "problem domains". This mentality is completely evident in the current designers of SC2 and most if not all RTS games. Most units are designed from a bottom-up approach, come up with a cool design, and then see where it fits in. This is great for marketing, but its terrible for gameplay. BW used a top-down approach for a lot of their units (maybe not all). This is obvious from the fact that each race has a unit for every role, unlike SC2. Within each units design you could see that there was a specific role-oriented design process. Each race is not so different that there isn't a unit that can fill a role, they just have their own unique flavour. In SC2 there are clear gaps where there are no units that can fill a particular role, and instead uses racial traits such as Zerg attrition to make up for it instead, unfortunately this makes the game flow very haphazard, and very difficult if not impossible to balance. Obviously they were going for something but weren't able to achieve it, its like a GO game where every 30 seconds you can put down an extra white piece, but black can kill two pieces at once, looks cool, impossible to balance and doesn't actually improve the game. The biggest fear for the designers of using a top-down approach, is that the baneling may actually be completely worthless from this perspective. This issue would harp all the way back from the initial design process of WoL and we would have to start from back there. Maybe people should have a think about whether the baneling should actually be a unit that should actually be in the game, rather than trying to fix something that may be completely broke no matter what. Sure we may find something for the baneling model, but if anything I think we should consider completely remaking it and fulfilling a problem domain that actually exists for the zerg. I respect your non-partisan attitude and frank approach to the Baneling (and presumably other units), but you give the SC1 designers way too much credit. Each race absolutely did not have a unit for every role even in BW, let alone SC1 vanilla which was seriously broken. Zerg had no effective way to deal with Bio (which was fine because Bio was unusable without Medics!), Terran had no way of dealing with Carriers, Terran and Protoss had no good AtG harass/pressure unit, Protoss and Zerg had very rudimentary area control tools compared to Terran (Protoss never did get one), Protoss early game aggression was very limited, Zerg/Protoss ability to break Terran contains was always pretty limited. So I think it's wrong to raise SC1's unit design onto a pedestal, because a lot of the result was accidental or incidental. This doesn't tell us that it's right to keep the Baneling, but it doesn't tell us that it's wrong to, either. Surely more tinkering with a unit is called for to see if it's capable of finding a home in the roster, especially given that this is a SC2 unit and there are so few of those in SB already. | ||
|
Ramiz1989
12124 Posts
On February 12 2014 09:08 pure.Wasted wrote: And if someone drops a Zealot in the middle of a clump of Siege Tanks, your entire army will explode. I don't see any difference. So this change is bad on the grounds that Banelings are intrinsically a 1A unit? Lol OK. Ignoring for the moment that you're not painting the unit in a very positive light, there is such a thing as flanking, you know. Not to say that this suggestion is fantastic, but these are some shoddy counter-arguments you guys are dishing out. If "100% splash" is no good, though, here are some alternate suggestions in a similar vein. Give Banelings a new ability, "Combustion On/Off." Then either a Baneling with Combustion Off will deal 0 damage when it dies while Combustion On deals higher-than-current damage with FF, or a Baneling with Combustion Off will deal less-than-current damage with no FF while a Baneling with Combustion On will deal higher-than-current damage with FF. Either way, split-second micro by the Zerg is encouraged to maximize damage output/minimize casualties. Just throwing these out there. Banelings aren't 1a units, they never were. The only people who say that are those that: 1) Hate Zerg. 2) Never played with Zerg and Banelings in their life. Banelings force opponent to spread his army and micro against them, but if your opponent is microing well, you won't do well with unmicroed Banelings. They will just suicide into first enemy unit that they come close to, and I don't think that suiciding 10 Banelings into 1 Siege Tank is worth it. And how about instead of over-complicating things we leave them as they currently are since I don't see them as being a problem. To be honest I think that Lurkers are too strong right now, from the games I've seen but that just might be my experience. They start with 3 more damage than in BW, and with 15 more HP than in BW. I understand that they are stronger because of Stronger Marines, Firebats and addition of the Marauders, but Protoss early game units are the same as in BW. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On February 12 2014 10:26 Ramiz1989 wrote: Banelings aren't 1a units, they never were. The only people who say that are those that: 1) Hate Zerg. 2) Never played with Zerg and Banelings in their life. Banelings force opponent to spread his army and micro against them, but if your opponent is microing well, you won't do well with unmicroed Banelings. They will just suicide into first enemy unit that they come close to, and I don't think that suiciding 10 Banelings into 1 Siege Tank is worth it. And how about instead of over-complicating things we leave them as they currently are since I don't see them as being a problem. To be honest I think that Lurkers are too strong right now, from the games I've seen but that just might be my experience. They start with 3 more damage than in BW, and with 15 more HP than in BW. I understand that they are stronger because of Stronger Marines, Firebats and addition of the Marauders, but Protoss early game units are the same as in BW. Mauraders just don't come into play in TvZ in starbow. They would help counter lurkers ... but I never see them made because of the threat of mutas. If you are going bio, you can't spare supply/cycles/resources on something that doesn't help address the muta threat. | ||
|
WarpTV
205 Posts
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. 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 clam 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. And about this ideal that banelings are not microed is just crazy, 1-A banes do nothing vs split marines. Zerg must quicly and skillfully counter split banelings or 8 banelings will suicide on 1 firebat. Banelings don't split them selfs, lol | ||
| ||
