EPT[A] Starbow - Page 51
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
| ||
|
haitike
Spain2744 Posts
On August 04 2012 07:39 JustPassingBy wrote: Is it really a bad think that the income is higher? It makes expanding strong, hence it is more taxing on the multitasking of the players in order to play it correctly. I think that is just what we need after the game ui and the game ai makes the general handling of the units easier. Raise 200 population in 15 minutes with 3 bases like in SC2 doesnt feel right. BW was awesome with that battles along all the coordenates of the maps fighting for resourses. In sc2 is like i get Main, Nat and Easy Third and I ignore the other parts of the map. | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
On August 04 2012 03:24 Laertes wrote: Gossen, I feel you are far too obsessed with making SC2BW 2.0. We need to differentiate ourselves from that mod with a few key things, and I feel like if mining time is balanced, but NOT what you are going for, i'd go with staying with the balance. HOWEVER, I also feel that maybe you should make the mining system a little more complicated. If you're going to increase the time workers take to be built, I feel it needs to be done in a certain way so that All-ins won't be useless. What if we balanced the economy so it PANS when the base saturated. This means that as you are producing the economy will grow and grow, but as it saturates, the economy will pan. How should we do this? I am going to ask Roblin to help me here, because he is good at breaking things down, and I am only good at building things up. I cannot even begin to imagine how we would make saturation not have much of an effect. I have an idea though, if saturation is 2 workers per mineral and there are 8 mineral fields, at 7mpt, then the net economy does something. There is always a mathematical net worth to each setup of the economy. Roblin, I seriously need your help brainstorming this, cause I can't figure out where to begin with a panned economy. Do that thing where you break everything down please :\. so you want an income/worker curve to look something like this? http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot 100x/(x+1), x from 0 to 10 first of all, its impossible to get it just like that, since the existence of multiple patches mean the scaling will be, at worst, linear until there are X drones, where X is the amount of patches in the base in question. however, this should be achievable: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot min(100, x*10, x*5/2+60), x from 0 to 20 for the rest of the post I will assume the target maximum income from any given base should be 100/minute, to modify this number simply multiply all my calculations with appropriate modifier. (for example, if we actually want 753, simply multiple all results by 753/100 = 7.53) to get this exact income curve (theoretically, assuming 8 patches) the numbers should be set in such a way that: 1 patch mined by 1 drone yields exactly 10/minute. 1 patch mined by 2 drones yields exactly 12.5/minute now, of course this does not account for a drone switching mineral patch, thereby increasing total gain. for example, if we have 3 drones and 2 patches, if 2 drones per patch is maximum, how much income do we expect? well, its 1 patch with 1 drone and 1 patch with 2 drones, so the total income is (10+12.5) 22.5/minute this might be false, depending upon how the system is designed, it is possible to always have 1 drone going back and forth between the patches and that makes it act as if it had a patch of its own, not an entire patch perhaps, but maybe about 50% of a patch instead of 25% of a patch which would be the case if it stayed on only 1 at all times, thus increasing total efficiency higher than we expected (we get 25/minute instead of 22.5/minute). however, this have so many unknowns in it that we cannot possibly account for it accurately with a mathematical formula, since we lack the unknown constants such as how much time is spent travelling between mineral patches, its easier to just keep in the back of our mind "the function will approach 100 but will be strictly greater than our curve for 8<x<16" however, what this means is that the curve will simply be more smooth than before, which might be a good thing. to account for such occurences however, we might adjust our linear scaling a little bit, to something like this http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot min(100, x*8, x*4.5+28), x from 0 to 20 as is visible in both plots, I think of it in three stages: 0-8 linear, the drones have 1 patch each. 9-16 theoretically linear, but in practice it will be curved and strictly greater than the graphs I have shown due to drone-patch-switching. 17+ full saturation, more doesn't help. but this second one is seemingly fairly linear throughout the entire saturation process, which is what we wanted to avoid in the beginning question. to create a custom curve with the properties listed above (about 0-8, 9-16, 17+) use the following algorithm: 1. choose a constant (lets call this constant "a") between 12.5 and 6.25 (if 12.5, then maximum saturation is reached with 8 drones, if 6.25, the curve is linear until 16 drones), this constant will be how many minerals per minute 1 drone will collect if alone at 1 patch (assuming 100 is maximum income) 2. mark down f1 = x*a 3. mark down f2 = x*(12.5-a) + (16*a-100) to watch your curve, go to http://www.wolframalpha.com/ and type: plot min(100, f1, f2), x from 0 to 20 where f1 and f2 is substituted for the respective functions. example: a = 10 f1 = x*10 f2 = x*2.5 + 60 plot min(100, x*10, x*2.5+60), x from 0 to 20 now, to get the amount of minerals for patch with single drone or patch with double drone for any chosen setup: the amount of mineral income for 1 patch with 1 mining drone should be our constant a the amount of mineral income for 1 patch with 2 mining drones should be exactly 12.5 now, using this method anyone can play around trying different numbers and finding something they are happy with, so I won't go on length talking much more about a bunch of different setups. I am confident kabel has the skills and knowledge required to implement any economy system he wishes, as long as he knows how much money 1 alone drone should generate and how much money 2 drones together should generate, assuming both mine the same patch. afterall, I know he has done it before. // Roblin | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Sadly enough, I think that many things from SC2 is of poor/less interesting design compared to BW, for various reasons. (Even though SC2 has some great stuff too!) But I do not use BW content 'just because it is BW. I use it because there are so much stuff there that works and are good! Earlier in the mod I aimed to invent more stuff. Create new units out of the models that were available. Of course that didn´t work out so well, simply because balancing and building such stuff requires a lot of time. Instead, I started to look more at the balance of BW. How units interacted etc. And I have slowly transfeared that into this new meta-game here. Cause as you see, there are still stuff in the races that were not in BW. Things I think makes the game even better. Atleast I think that this MOD is better now than it was, say, two months ago? I do not think one has to played a lot of BW to play this. There is a new meta game here people have to get adapted to. Its very different from SC2 and slightly different from BW. But it still uses all SC2 mechanics, which I think is good for now. I will not try to limit unit or building selection or similar things (plus that it does not work so well). So a normal SC2 player will soon get adapted to this as well. I hate when games are elitist. Like BW was. In BW, if you were a new player, you would do nothing right. It would be so hard. Here, you can as a starter still put up a fight and macro an army.. I think it is good that games lets players be decent at them the first time they try it. And if you are a master here, you will still beat a newcomer, despite the easier mechanics. So.. this is the reason I stick around with much BW content and the BW economy. It saves me a lot of time, it works, its good, it makes an enjoyable game. Thats why I am trying to improve upon it. Make the true follow up to such a great game ^^ But just for the sake of comparison: SC2 stuff in this MOD: Orbital/Planetary fortress. Reactor/Techlab. Vikings. Supply Drop. Supply depot can be lowered. Detection tower. Calldown SCV. Creep spread, Queens, Banelings, moveable Spine & spore crawlers, Overseers, Infestors, Warp in, Chrono boost, Stalkers with Blink, Force Field, Vortex, Void Ray, Warp Prism, Anti-gravity on Corsairs BW stuff in the MOD: Vutlures wih spider mines, Science Vessles with Irradiate, Medics, Firebats, Goliaths, Wraiths, Lockdown Lurkers, Scourge, Dark Swarm, Plague, mutalisks morph into stronger air units Corsairs, Arbiters, Reavers, Dark Archon with Maelstrom "Invented stuff" (that are not in BW or SC2) in this MOD: Shield for medics, Calldown SCV, Nerve Jammer Infect creep, "Infest" for Infestors, Swarm Guardians, Frenzy for Swarm Guardians, Zerg units can move while burrowed Void Shell for Dark Archon, Matrix for Arbiter, Recall for Nexus (I´ve left out stuff that are in both games, like High Templars, Siege tanks etc) | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1982 Posts
For example danko is not good at bw but he is better than me in starbow. Everyone can be good here if he puts some effort in it. Its just a different game with aspects of bw and sc2. Everyone should give it atleast a try. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1982 Posts
 they show up very grey again.. looks like grey and yellow mixed | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
On August 04 2012 21:01 TaShadan wrote: Hm having problems with the stalker and void ray graphic again they show up very grey again.. looks like grey and yellow mixed Please post a screenshot | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1982 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6sAtc.jpg) | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
On August 05 2012 05:53 TaShadan wrote: looks normal to me, they looked that way when we played on EU this friday at least. intent is to make the color scheme match rest of protoss? I think, not sure though. pretty sure its intended. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1982 Posts
like this http://www.sc2mapster.com/assets/dark-protoss/files/47-templar-stalker/ | ||
|
seve
91 Posts
| ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1982 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TRYs1.jpg) | ||
|
seve
91 Posts
| ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1982 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0aXYC.jpg) | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Lots of minor fixes on the spells, buttons & units. Infect creep removed. The reason is that right now it does not fit. It is bad design. It will probably be reworked and readded, but do something else instead. Swarm Guardian requires Hive & Infestaion Pit & Spire or Greater spire. Earlier they had Infestation pit & Hive as a requirement. Which meant that Zerg got them as soon as they got Hive. Since there is no seperate building for Swarm Guardian (I have no model) I pushed them little higher up the tech tree, since they are a really powerful unit. Vultures are now armored. Both Hydras & Stalkers can counter them since they deal extra damage vs armored. Worker speed slightly increased. (From 2.81 to 2.95) This makes the income be slightly more so it gets closer to the BW values. Also, earlier it was very easy to deny scouting. Stalker & unupgraded Zerglings move at speed 2.95, which was enough to snipe enemy workers trying to scout. Now that is a little trickier. Different maps in the map pool. See the opening post for details. (Just to give some variation) ----- This patch is on it´s way to NA now. If anyone wanna play on EU, join the Starbow chat channel! I am online now for the rest of the evening. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 97295
1137 Posts
| ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
On August 06 2012 01:58 Laertes wrote: I liked Infect Creep, you should never remove things from the game before you see what they can do. I think you should put it back, because the more "useless things" you have the more options there are in general. I did not remove it because it was bad or useless. I removed it because the design is bad. Having such ability in the game is not good. Zerg has Spine crawlers & lurkers & normal creep tumors with speed boost for base defence. No need to add something to the game that does what other stuff in the Zerg race already can do. Edit: When I released all the new spells a week ago, they looked good in "theory." Now when they have been played for a week, some new spells have been proven to be useful and fits the game, others do not. Infect creep is one of them. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1982 Posts
On August 06 2012 01:28 Kabel wrote: TaShadan, I think the Stalkers look as they should in the screenshots? I don´t see a difference. They are both gold. i had the feeling they look different but maybe its just cause of different team colors | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Minor fixes on spells or abilities. Infect creep has been redesigned. As before you target a Creep tumor. It lasts 30 seconds and now slows all ground units on nearby creep by 50%. ALL ground units are slowed except for the Queen. The spell does not work as a base defence, like earlier. Instead you can use it to buy time and slow the enemy advancement. This spell will be more useful if you have a large area of Creep, since you can use it multiple times to slow the enemy down. Note: You own units are also slowed! Will this be good or useful? Lets test and see. I am in the Starbow Chat channel now on EU if anyone wanna play! | ||
| ||
