EPTHmm ok. I thought it was the same as in BW. Alternative is to make reactors much more expensive of course. But then they would be totally useless for bio production.
[A] Starbow - Page 422
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
Hmm ok. I thought it was the same as in BW. Alternative is to make reactors much more expensive of course. But then they would be totally useless for bio production. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Its 26build time right now? http://starbow.wikia.com/wiki/Vulture :D @Foxxans Sentinel spell Yes it sounds like a good idea. I think both Null ward and Safeguard could need some rework. When I get more time will I look closer into the Sentinel spells and see what can be done. It will require quite a lot of hours of work in the editor though. But it depends on exactly how it should work and what bugs there are, @unit testmap Doesnt work, same error as before. Did you try and do what johhny wrote to you? He wrote a link, a few days ago. Before saturday last week or something. He said "easy fix", and than provided a link. Would be so useful if we could test this map I did not update the Unit Tester. Only the test map on Fighting Spirit. I can look into it real quick though and see if I can solve the unit tester too. Firebat is needed for early game tvz? Some argues that it is very important for the balance. - Detection ranges of static defenses. I don't see the argument for not going with BW values here. I don´t mind the BW values. But are we sure about exact values of the detection range? And will this cause problem for T, since Spider mines do not detect? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
And will this cause problem for T, since Spider mines do not detect? Easier acces to scan evens that out. At the moment I think Dt's are useless vs mech. Lower detection range willl add more diversity in that regard. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
I don´t mind the BW values. But are we sure about exact values of the detection range? And will this cause problem for T, since Spider mines do not detect? Hm i dont think it will cause problems, since scan is unlocked faster already. Also, dts now are like garbage to mech because of the faster scan unlock and huge range of turret Also, why is not spidermine hit detection fixed? when i ask dec about it, he says "ask kabel" Yes, iam sure about it, i have read a couple of sites that says that Some argues that it is very important for the balance. Because lings win in small numbers. I mean, they are very costeffecient in small numbers atm, i dont know how it was in bw cuz i dont find any unittestmap there. (Anyone know of any)? So with firebat, makes him able to move out. With small numbers, well according my testing here in starbow. HAvent tried with 45hp, but criticalmass starts at around 30marines when they had 40hp. Lings won quite easy before the critical. Even with medics | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Hmm ok. I thought it was the same as in BW. Alternative is to make reactors much more expensive of course. But then they would be totally useless for bio production I think you actually look at the liquiepedia page? It says 30, and tthats normalgamespeed. So you are right if u meant that. I tried to do some math, but like every 10vult produced from one factory, it would mean two less vultures by that time. Add this up over many factories and it would have an impact. Still dont see how it compensates for the reactor. If no one wants to remove it, than add a increased cost for it. Iam not sure what to do, unless we compensate some prodcution for other races, but have no idea how | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Hm i dont think it will cause problems, since scan is unlocked faster already. Also, why is not spidermine hit detection fixed? when i ask dec about it, he says "ask kabel" Yes, iam sure about it, i have read a couple of sites that says that Ask December + Show Spoiler + ^^ + Show Spoiler + No, but there are two reasons I have not done it: 1) I don´t know how to do it. (Dec explained it, but it does not work properly) 2) Is it really more fun for the game? It creates a Chinese wall so there is no way for DTs, burrowed moving Zerg units, Ghosts or anything to get in position for harassment. I always thought that was a bit lame in BW at least. Automatic defence. As long as T has acess to early Scan, this should be balanced out? @Unit Tester for the Test map I can´t get it to work and gotta go now. If anyone of you want to get the Unit Tester for the Test map up, you can do this: 1.) Download the map from me here: http://speedy.sh/nHMyB/Starbow-Unit-Tester-For-Test-Map.SC2Map 2.) Follow those instructions: http://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/development/data/25903-param-value/#p2 3.) Save it and maybe rename it. Upload it to Battle.net. (Make sure to make it Public) 4.) Try it online and hope it works. Otherwise I will try again tomorrow and upload it. The file above already contains all data for the Test map. (Roach values etc) Ps. Keep in mind that the normal Starbow Unit Tester is in the hands of JonnhyZerg. He is the one who updates it and takes care off it. <3 But it also means that sometimes it is un-updated when a new patch is released, if he is busy. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
Isn't eco-tesitng a lot more fun than discussion balance? :D Anyhow. I messed around with the return delay values that we implemented and soon realized that they never should have been implemented. Short story: I made a new testmap where the placement of the mineral patches in BW was almost equal to that of Sbow (It is impossible to make them exact equal because mineral patches in BW were bigger than in Sbow). min/min = minerals per minute. BW: 1/0.47/0.46 8 workers: 550 min/min max saturation with 28 workers on 1130 min/min Sbow as it is now: 1/0.8/0.14 (not good  )8 workers: 562 min/min max saturation with 20 workers on 1100 min/min Removed 0.5 return delay and added 0.5 to mining time: 1/0.77/0.16 (still not good )8 workers: 560 min/min + Show Spoiler + This should, ofc be exactly the same as above but it just shows the weakness of measuring this way. max saturation: 20 workers on 1080 min/min Removed delay completely and brought back the 5.412 mining time: 1/0.5/0.23 (not bad!) 8 workers 572 min/min (same as in spoiler above) max saturation: 24 workers on 980 min/min. Conclusion: The closer we want to approach BW in terms of mining efficiency per worker, the lower the max saturation becomes, but it does not get there until more workers. I think we should go for no delay time to bring worker efficiency closer to BW, even though each base cannot produce more than 980 min/min compared to 1130 in BW. It seems that we cannot have the cake and eat it too but messing with return delay numbers... Long story: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pOjQhCR.png) I suggest that we remove the delay time and have mining time be 5.412 (if you do this, Kabel, then remember to set the wait time in the triggers to 5.412 as well or else they won't bounce). | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
2) Is it really more fun for the game? It creates a Chinese wall so there is no way for DTs, burrowed moving Zerg units, Ghosts or anything to get in position for harassment. I always thought that was a bit lame in BW at least. Automatic defence. As long as T has acess to early Scan, this should be balanced out? As long as T has acess to early Scan, this should be balanced out? Hmm. Right now turrets give 11detection, and scan unlocks faster and cheaper. When we played tvp, it was before the new eco, i dont know how it is with the new eco. I must add, i think there is a potential problem with scan shares energy with scv calldown. Still alot of possible threats over the game. Even in the opening, scan is only temporary against pure dts. If protoss use warpprism with dt, scan is not enough. WIthout spidermines hitting stealth, it would set terran bavckwards in the opening by quite a big margin. Its very mandatory and it doesnt give him 100% safety because the mines need to be placed in good positions, and protoss can still in some cases hit mines with his zealot or dragoon. It adds flavor to the openings of terran. Without it, terran would be forced to much more passive/defencive play It would make it kinda mandatory for terran if he decides to attack somwhere to always build a turret Zerg units are not suppoused to move while walking in burrow mode. The future roach however, i see it as a potential strategy for terran with the spidermines here actually. Since mech is already "kinda bad" in bw against zerg. This would add another flavor to it if it worked. Some things the mines annoy me about: When they move up to the surface, the ai do not attack them immediately. Its like they wait one-two seconds and that is a very long time 1/0.8/0.14 (not good ): Wow. So much income here. A big(?) buff to terr/toss over zerg(?) @Turret detection range Do you realise how much it is right now? Two turrets can cover 22range in detection, compared to in bw: only 14. Way to easy to cover the entire base with detection. Four turrets=44 range in detection. Four turrets, bw= 28 range in detection | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
On September 27 2013 21:18 Foxxan wrote: No. Still alot of possible threats over the game. Even in the opening, scans is not enough because of warpprism drop with dts inside, and you do not have infinite scans even. Protoss could abuse this quite easy. It even shares cooldown with the very important scv calldown. WIthout spidermines hitting stealth, it would set terran bavckwards in the opening by quite a big margin. Its very mandatory and it doesnt give him the safety you even except. Terran needs four good placed spidermines to kill two dts. Protoss usually go for 2gate dt rush, when he goes for it. Terran would actually like to put them somewhere else, he will have to do this blindly even just to be safe. Zerg units are not suppoused to move while walking in burrow mode. The future roach however, i see it as a potential strategy for terran with the spidermines here actually. Since mech is already "kinda bad" in bw against zerg. This would add another flavor to it if it worked. Some things the mines annoy me about: When the move up to the surface, the ai do not attack them immediately. Its like they wait one-two seconds and that is a very long time As a terran you only survive on scans temporarily untill you get turrets out. I think dealing with DT's will be a lot easier than in Sc2 (since scans are much "cheaper" here in terms of opportunity cost). And as I don't think DT's are imba in Sc2, I think it will be pretty balanced in Sbow as well, even with lower detection range on turrets. @ Econ With 1/0.5/0.23 you will have like 15 less Vultures when on 3 bases relative to what you would have in BW. I think that difference is enough to make taking a 4th base faster (and turtling) a prefered option over 3-base timings - Tough to say though. | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
@ Econ With 1/0.5/0.23 you will have like 15 less Vultures when on 3 bases relative to what you would have in BW. I think that difference is enough to make taking a 4th base faster (and turtling) a prefered option over 3-base timings - Tough to say though. Why not try it out on the Testmap? Gogo! I don't know who's in charge but I'd like to see what games those mining values would generate. Seems like it really would force taking more bases, which I think is good.  | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Why not try it out on the Testmap? Gogo! I don't know who's in charge but I'd like to see what games those mining values would generate. Seems like it really would force taking more bases, which I think is good. Could also mean much more turtle play, which is not good | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
On September 27 2013 21:46 Foxxan wrote: Could also mean much more turtle play, which is not good Is the current semi-turtling in Sbow and in StarCraft 2 not because of the 0.8 value of mineral gathering from second worker? Does it not make it much easier to stick to 3-base when the value it so high? Would it not better with 0.5 to further punish having many workers on one single base instead of spreading out? | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On September 27 2013 22:11 Jawra wrote: Is the current semi-turtling in Sbow and in StarCraft 2 not because of the 0.8 value of mineral gathering from second worker? Does it not make it much easier to stick to 3-base when the value it so high? Would it not better with 0.5 to further punish having many workers on one single base instead of spreading out? No. In fact, it was added yesterday. Time before that the eco was much worse. If it were 0.5, you would still want the same amount of workers Its the third worker that is the problem. Right now with 1/0.8/0.1, its not passiveplay, still the third worker gives like nothing. And that is a problem With 1/0.5/0.2 Here, now the more immobolize race has to play more turtle, and that is a concern' Sc2, second worker gives 0.8 is not what causes passive play. Its more deep than that there. In starbow, second worker gives 0.8, i think it will cause actiongame | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
I see no reason not to do this. More bw values DT- 80HP 40shield, he is the opposite now in game. 40dmg +3 each upgrade 125/100 cost, 1base armor Sunken colony: 40 explosive damage. So he do 40 to shields, needed for zerg. Arbiter He needs fleet bacon instead of arbiter tribunal They have same buildtime. Fleetbacon: 300/200 arbiter tribunal 200/150 Also, there were no "increase range or flying speed" of flyingunits for protoss except something for scout But higher cost for fleetbacon. I suggest make it the same cost as arbiter tribunal, since carriers are already quite heavy nerfed here. Make as you said yesterday, fusuion core mandatory to unlock scienvessel. I checked the price up and it is the same price as scienve facilitiy there. Also, make the SV upgrades in that building. Makes sence right? Arbiter: Is is 100/350 cost. Not 150/350 as now ingame His autoattack is buffed,but still crap(not suggesting to buff his autoattack, infact make it more like bw), his spells are heavy nerfed compared to bw, also his spell range is nerfed. His statis is instant though(buff) SV radius is nerfed, but he can cast his spells easier here. Since both are suppoused to be tier3 units, and quite an impact on tvp gameplay. Copy their animations and behavor from broodwar? WIll make it harder to use both of them. Scien | ||
|
Jawra
Sweden146 Posts
On September 27 2013 22:35 Xiphias wrote: 0.2 is not enough to say that turtle is the best way to go imo. BW had at least twice as much for the third and even a little for the fourth (24 workers was not max saturation). Or am I misunderstanding your argument? I just think that 0.8 is too high of a value from the second worker, and that 0.1 is too low from the third. I don't know how hard it is too attain the BW econ of 1/0.5/0.5 -*ish* but that is the values we should strive for, no? :o I think there should be more punishment than a -0.2 from having 2 workers at the same min patch so that people would want to spread out the workers even more and have to take more bases. I just think 0.8 is too much of an incentive to not take additional bases earlier. The BW value of 0.5 from second worker must be what made people expand so much in BW, since it's such a huge step down from 1.0 when having 1 worker active at 1 min patch. I really believe that the 1/0.5/0.2 is a step in the right direction and should be tested at least, so as to not miss out on what it could have been. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
Anyone try? Edit: Ok, i moved pass part two also. Now i closed the galaxy, and move on Ok, iam evolving... •Open the ComponentList.SC2Components file with a text editor What is a text editor? wordpad? What file am i suppoused to open excactly?? and with what program? Tried wordpad andn otepad now. Dont understand this anyone help? | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
On September 27 2013 22:45 Jawra wrote: I just think that 0.8 is too high of a value from the second worker, and that 0.1 is too low from the third. I don't know how hard it is too attain the BW econ of 1/0.5/0.5 -*ish* but that is the values we should strive for, no? :o I think there should be more punishment than a -0.2 from having 2 workers at the same min patch so that people would want to spread out the workers even more and have to take more bases. I just think 0.8 is too much of an incentive to not take additional bases earlier. The BW value of 0.5 from second worker must be what made people expand so much in BW, since it's such a huge step down from 1.0 when having 1 worker active at 1 min patch. I really believe that the 1/0.5/0.2 is a step in the right direction and should be tested at least, so as to not miss out on what it could have been. I agree with you here 100% I think we could attain more BW ish value by increasing the harvest time. BUT, that would lead to general less income AND even lower maximum saturation. The only, I think, to get exact BW mining is to have exact BW pathing. There was a wall of text blog about that somewhere. It would require an huge amount of trigger/data work and still probably not be desirable. Remember that even though we get closer to BW value with no return delay, we do lower the maximum income possible per base. I don't think we should just try this in the test-map but just implement it in SBow on all maps since this is much closer to both BW and to what we initially wanted. (The 1/0.5/0.23 solution I mean). Also 20% =/= 23% That is actually a significant difference.... | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9420 Posts
In terms of balance, higher mineral income will have the following effect; - Vultures indirectly buffed --> Rewards/Forces Stalker play = Good for desired gameplay. - Speedlings + Marines indirectly buffed --> Not likely to be a balance issue due to protoss being better vs light units early game. - Zealots buffed. Terran can still deal with them fine due to Vultures and Marines also being buffed. Same thing for zerg due to speedling buff + new roach. So overall, I actually we think we have all the tools in the game (unlike in BW) to make it possible to have a higher mineral income than in BW. I wouldn't mind seeing something like 1/0.65/0.35 if that's doable? Seems like it really would force taking more bases, which I think is good I used to think so too, but really forcing players to take more bases is actually not good. Instead, it forces the immobile player to spread him self over multiple locations and if he does his job well the opponent can't really attack into him. In general this creates much more stale games than if he could simply just make a 3base timing attack. The key to having a good economy is not to give the mobile race a much higher econ than the opponent throughout the entire game, but instead to give the mobile race a better economy eventually. For instance protoss first gets a noticeable better econ than terran once he takes his 4th + 5th base --> which incentiizes the terran to attack the protoss player before the protoss player can take advantage of the much better econ. | ||
| ||
