|
On July 25 2015 04:48 Pontius Pirate wrote:
Not quite. It gets converted to a Warpgate just fine, so it doesn't interfere with their macroing process. But to do a specific example,
1) you produce a Stalker and then
2) you immediately convert the Warpgate.
3) The Warpgate completes and
4) is stuck in "warpgate cooldown" for 32 seconds, the time it would be stalled out for had you just warped in a Stalker, the type of unit that you had just finished building from the Gateway. Does that make sense?
OK, now I understand. But that doesn't change much. The scenario I described remains valid.
I fear it would just cause more confusion than help 
On July 25 2015 05:25 egrimm wrote:That's why I proposed really small radius (like Forcefields) for Recall "field"  You cannot "contain" 20 blink stalkers in such small area, especially that stalkers have also bigger model than zelots I believe? You would be able to recall max 6-8 units with properly set radius on ability.
OK, I see what you want to do. That make sense, although I am still not fully happy about an ability that lands "out of the blue" that the opponent can't do anything about it. Scenarios like: chasing stray collosus... puff... gone - come to mind.
But let us assume that we have Recall/Rift and Chronoboost on Nexus. What do we do with MSC? Completely remove it?
On July 25 2015 05:25 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +[*] And simply: having access to teleport without a unit to manage it would be so much easier Well that is true You have no Arbiter/MsC so It may be slightly easier to manage but is it necessarily that bad in the end?
People are complaining that Protoss is an "easy race". I don't really want to debate that, but making it easier is probably not what we want to do
P.S. Did you check PM I sent you regarding testing?
|
On July 25 2015 06:01 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2015 05:25 egrimm wrote:That's why I proposed really small radius (like Forcefields) for Recall "field" You cannot "contain" 20 blink stalkers in such small area, especially that stalkers have also bigger model than zelots I believe? You would be able to recall max 6-8 units with properly set radius on ability. OK, I see what you want to do. That make sense, although I am still not fully happy about an ability that lands "out of the blue" that the opponent can't do anything about it. Scenarios like: chasing stray collosus... puff... gone - come to mind.
Yes that may be a problem. I hope that some tweaking of stats for Recall will be sufficient. For example time when units are trying to be recalled can be still attacked during that period. Increasing duration of that "phase" we can make Recall ability less forgiving as Colossus from your example would have to stand and "wait" for being recalled and doing nothing while oppenents army could try to snipe it or at least deal some dmg to it.
But let us assume that we have Recall/Rift and Chronoboost on Nexus. What do we do with MSC? Completely remove it?
To be honest I've never liked MsC idea nor Mothership even so I would promote removal-way 
MsC is slow, expensive and does not feel good to micro it. Also it is "hero unit" which I do not like in SC and on the other hand if allowed to build en masse may cause problems as it flies and is available in early game.
It's sole function is to carry crucial spells. If we distribute those across the protoss arsenal there is no purpose for MsC.
On July 25 2015 05:25 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +[*] And simply: having access to teleport without a unit to manage it would be so much easier Well that is true You have no Arbiter/MsC so It may be slightly easier to manage but is it necessarily that bad in the end?
People are complaining that Protoss is an "easy race". I don't really want to debate that, but making it easier is probably not what we want to do
Haha yeah that argument holds some truth 
P.S. Did you check PM I sent you regarding testing?
Done
|
I am actually inclined to forgo my setup and go for yours. For one reason: yours resembles more WoL - something that at least some players will be familiar with. Mine on the other hand is more new and unique, breaking the initial constraints of SCI as well.
I would love to hear other people's opinion on these, it's hard to be unbiased when your own solutions are being considered.
Options we currently have:
- Current SCI model: massable Mothership Core with Chronoboost and shorter Photon Overcharge, no Recall no Time Warp
- egrimm model: no Mothership Core, Chronoboost, Recall on Nexus. Shorter Photon Overcharge would end up being on Nexus as well. Probably all would be unlocked through Cybernetics Core
|
On July 25 2015 14:59 BlackLilium wrote:
I am actually inclined to forgo my setup and go for yours.
Thx, I hope for the best!
On July 25 2015 14:59 BlackLilium wrote:- egrimm model: no Mothership Core, Chronoboost, Recall on Nexus. Shorter Photon Overcharge would end up being on Nexus as well. Probably all would be unlocked through Cybernetics Core
That may work just fine but I also thought about small upgrade for Nexus. You would have to transform each Nexi separately, similarly to Orbital Command. Cost 50-100 minerals + 10-35 sec transform time (gate->warpgate takes 10 sec, CC->OC takes 35 sec).
Other way to do this is to add upgrade to Cybernetic Core and then after the reserach You can transform all your Nexi without a cost, only transformation time. Same as Warpgate research works in HotS.
Both solutions somehow coincide with gate->warpgate transformation especially with proposed earlier change to also add small fee to warpgates That way it feels more coherent and there is some flavour to race
I suppose that later on, after changes to Warpgate and gateway units, We might also rethink Photon overcharge. There might be room to change it to other defensive ability which would complement redesigned Protoss or just simply completly remove if Protoss would work fine without it. As of now I'd keep it with shorter duration and maybe slightly reduced cost ?
|
I don't want an upgradable Nexus. That implies a new mechanic and a new addon/building, like the Starbow's Khaydarin Citadel. On the other hand I firmly believe that Chronoboost shouldn't be instantly available due to proxy gateway (with lower unit build time) problem .
I suppose that later on, after changes to Warpgate and gateway units, We might also rethink Photon overcharge.
Warpgate and gateway units are already changed. Unless you have some further changes in mind?
|
On July 25 2015 16:36 BlackLilium wrote:
I don't want an upgradable Nexus. That implies a new mechanic and a new addon/building, like the Starbow's Khaydarin Citadel.
Fair enough
On the other hand I firmly believe that Chronoboost shouldn't be instantly available due to proxy gateway (with lower unit build time) problem .
Totally agree. May I ask does lower build time for gatway units is already implemented?
I suppose that later on, after changes to Warpgate and gateway units, We might also rethink Photon overcharge.
Warpgate and gateway units are already changed. Unless you have some further changes in mind?[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I somehow missed that. I thought these changes are still under development
I think right now it would be good idea to playtest current build with changes to warpgate, gateway units and protoss macro mechanics and only after that think about possible further changes to gateway units.
|
All changes that are listed under blue "Experimental" or "Stable" branch (posts 4-6) are already implemented, that includes gateway changes, economy changes, uphill shooting etc...
If you look for "SC Improved" mod you will find
- "SC Improved" - that's master branch, including only "master branch" changes
- "SC Improved Stable" - that includes "master branch" and "stable branch" changes
- "SC Improved Experimental" - that includes all changes.
This way we can test and compare all the things discussed, and get a better understanding and feeling of them. This also allows me to fast potential bugs quicker. At the same time, I am open to changes or even rollbacks - especially in the experimental branch. This way the mod is created iteratively and incrementally, rather than throwing a big group of changes and then getting lost in it.
|
Oh Gosh the "Make Protoss pay 100 Minerals" for every Gateway to Warpgate is such a nice, easy and simple idea to promote Macroplay over "GATEWAY Aggression" while not taking away the possibility.
|
Sorry, I didn't read all 8 pages, but regarding the high ground miss rate I agree with comments like these:
I think you just started walking on a dangerous path by making new rules that increase the learning barrier. I am not saying you can never do that (because obviously its part of a mod), but you need to seriously evaluate disadvantage and advantages. Players won't be able to figure out that these rules exist by learning by playing unless you make a clear visual indication that its the case. They will just "have to know it", which imo is a nono when it comes to (simple) game design.
So what about changing targeting/vision instead. Either make it so that low ground units have to get up closer while the high ground units are already firing at them, or make it so that instead of "missing" they simply aren't able to get a shot off. Both of these would be much more obvious to the player.
This mod seems really great though. Is the only way to play to get a friend to play with?
|
On July 26 2015 09:09 MaximilianKohler wrote:Sorry, I didn't read all 8 pages, but regarding the high ground miss rate I agree with comments like these: Show nested quote +I think you just started walking on a dangerous path by making new rules that increase the learning barrier. I am not saying you can never do that (because obviously its part of a mod), but you need to seriously evaluate disadvantage and advantages. Players won't be able to figure out that these rules exist by learning by playing unless you make a clear visual indication that its the case. They will just "have to know it", which imo is a nono when it comes to (simple) game design. So what about changing targeting/vision instead. Either make it so that low ground units have to get up closer while the high ground units are already firing at them, or make it so that instead of "missing" they simply aren't able to get a shot off. Both of these would be much more obvious to the player.
I agree with the statement you quoted as well. For that reason we are limiting the effects that do not have a clear visual feedback to a minimum. However, the high ground advantage is one of few that players simply need to know. Note, however, that uphill shooting never miss anymore, but the damage is reduced to 50%.
On July 26 2015 09:09 MaximilianKohler wrote:
This mod seems really great though. Is the only way to play to get a friend to play with?
Glad to hear you are liking it. We are just starting though and there is still a long road ahead.
Playing games would really help us, but the mod is not popular yet to be able to easily find an opponent. You can simply host a match and make it public, but my experience so far was rather poor: either people immediately quit, or they play at bronze-level. Only once I faced a competent opponent who crushed me with forcefields (duh...). Sentries still have a play in PvZ, but they are harder to manage.
Anyway, if you look for an opponent, why don't you join "SC Improved" group? Whenever I am online, I am there.
You can also try to find me directly: LiliumAtratm#442 (no 'u' at the second-last position due to name length constrains)
|
You don't think the vision or not being able to get a shot off, would be more obvious to new players? Do you see any problems with those options?
|
On July 27 2015 04:42 MaximilianKohler wrote:
You don't think the vision or not being able to get a shot off, would be more obvious to new players? Do you see any problems with those options?
Vision-related benefit is a fragile benefit. Once you gain vision in any way, there is no benefit at all.
Range difference is either minor or huge, depending on the units involved. +1 for roach is different than +1 on a siege tank. This makes it also more binary: depending on the army composition, the high ground will have little-to-no influence, or it will completely change the result.
A damage change is the most consistent from it all. To my knowledge, Starbow developers also explored other solutions and they ended up changing the damage output as well (through a miss chance).
Back to the current topic of macro mechanics and Mothership Core. I implemented some changes proposed by egrimm and removed my own. Reason for that is, that making Mothership Core massable gives Protoss very early access to a flying unit, that can be hard to respond to. A 4-MSC rush into a Zerg base can be particularly hard to stop.
Delaying MSC or increasing its cost would delay Chronoboost too much. Other solution would be to significantly reduce the strength of the MSC, but no matter how low it is, it will be always a problem if you just can't shoot up.
Finally, I got a feeling that no one likes the idea of a Chronoboost on the Mothership Core.
So, now we have:
Experimental Branch
- Chronoboost is once again at Nexus
- Chronoboost uses original stats (25 energy, 50% speed boost)
- Chronoboost requires Cybernetics Core
- Chronoboost can still be casted on any building
- Photon Overcharge is casted by Nexus.
- Photon Overcharge requires a research (50/50/80s) at Cybernetics Core.
- Photon Overcharge runs on the Nexus where it is activated. PO cannot be casted on a different Nexus.
- Photon Overcharge energy cost 100 -> 75
- Duration remains at 15s (down from 60s in HotS)
- Mothership Core completely removed
- Mothership is constructed directly at Nexus, same as in WoL
SCI - Coda LE still uses an old loading screen. I will update it in few hours.
Still hoping for some players to fight against, using SCI
|
Since I don't see any complaints anymore about the proposed changes, I am pushing the Experimental Branch to Stable Branch and closing this topic.
Ground-to-Air vs Air-to-Air
In Strat Chat #1 it was remarked that Air-to-Air is currently more effective than Ground-to-Air. As a result, the best counter to air to get more air... This becomes particularly true when fighting mutalisks - which are not only fast, but have a high regeneration rate.
In theory however ground-to-air can, and probably should, be stronger. This is because air units can easily bypass terrain obstacles in such a direction where ground units cannot follow them. On the other hand, air-to-air units can follow and stick to their target, allowing them to do damage for a longer period of time - thus DPS can be lower, while remaining viable.
Finally, there is a Colossus: in PvZ and PvT the highest damage is received from units that the Colossus cannot shoot back. This causes a painful hard-counter situation. Either Colossus is too strong, or it becomes utterly useless.
However, when asked in Strat Chat about the situation, hoping to learn more I got this response:
On July 29 2015 15:53 Whitewing wrote:
Frankly, I'd just remove the bonus regeneration on the mutalisks. Right now, the only air army that protoss can't even attempt to fight with ground only units is mass muta. High templar are a good ground to air unit, and while stalkers and archons aren't great, they do okay in decent numbers. The issue is that mutalisks don't care with their regen rate, they fly in, do damage, run away and are back to full health in no time. While terran's anti-air DPS is so high mutas just plain die when they get close, Protoss is more based on high health lower damage units, so they can't just shred mutalisks.
Ground vs air isn't an issue in PvT. In TvZ it is with brood lords, but that's mostly because the goliath was replaced with the viking. That's not inherently problematic, since the viking is very weak vs. ground units and isn't extremely powerful straight up (it's strength is its range, not it's damage output), but brood lords still die if marines get under them pretty quickly, so I'm not too concerned about it.
Right now, the only real offender is the mutalisk.
Hydralisks and infestors do pretty well until the late game comes into fruition, for the most part. Spore crawlers help out a great deal as well. In HOTS it can be hard to deal with after the change to the swarm host, but in LOTV they have that new viper spell. Zerg doesn't have trouble vs air heavy armies until they start being super late game max air armies, and by then they can field vipers, infestors, mass corrupter, and a whole host of issues.
Zerg ground based anti-air does fine for most of the game, so it's okay for the most part.
This poses a question: should we balance GtA vs AtA or not? Seems the Strat Chat people are not sure either.
What is your opinion regarding GtA vs AtA, and individual units with an anti-air capabilities?
- I would like to have a look at least at Thor. It currently has 2 anti-air weapons, each being good at certain particular enemy air compositions. There is no real choice, because at each moment in time one is clearly better than another, and you can switch between attack modes freerly. That's why I am thinking about reverting the Thor back to WoL state, with anti-air dealing high damage and having splash. The old Thor 250mm Strike Cannons would be brought back and we could, later on, decide what to do with that ability.
We could also strengthen Thor's AA capabilities (damage? range?) at the cost of anti-ground reduction, making the unit a damage tanker more than anything else in the ground combat.
- I think we should be careful when tweaking Queen AA capabilities. The problem is, that Queens are already present at every base for other reasons. As a result, this form of AA is guaranteed to be there, even without Zerg detecting an air threat.
- We could consider indirectly buffing hydralisk AA by reducing hydralisk supply cost. We now operate with doubled supply, so making hydralisk cost 3 supply (equivalent to old 1.5) is more viable.
- Protoss has very few GtA units: Stalker, High Templar, Archon. Stalkers already have many other functions, templars act as AA only through storm. Buffing Archon attack would most likely made its ground strength too high. I don't see much room for us here. Maybe making Stalker do flat damage, rather than "10+4 vs Armored" would help in this domain as well?
- In terms of air-to-air, I am thinking about reducing Vikings strength a bit, especially that we reduced it's damage point and it is much more microable right now. Attack range reduction would be my first choice.
- Phoenix is very mobile and fun to play. Putting Graviton Beam aside, as an AA damage dealer they are particularly useful against mutalisks - against other air units not that much... If we succeed in making GtA protoss more viable, I think we could make Phoenix a bit weaker against light.
- Finally, on the receiver's side: I agree with Whitewing, that high regeneration on mutalisk is a problem when defending with ground-to-air, especially for Protoss.
|
High regeneration on fast units is a bad option. Why? Because it allows you to make mistakes without being punished.
In WoL and BW when you attack with mutalisks you have to be careful not to take too much damage. Any damage your expensive mutas take will make them useless for a couple of seconds or up to minutes even. For this reason you have to carefully evaluate where to attack. You can take risks; you can be rewarded or punished for that risk.
If mutalisks regenerate their health quickly this interaction is lost. Why should you care about taking damage? You dont keep it for long. You just move in and move out and nothing is lost as long as the mutas stay alive.
For slow units that might be fine because they are too slow to run away and the enemy might simply keep hitting them on their retreat. For fast moving units, which are, on top of that, air units, the fast regeneration is a bad thing design wise.
For ground anti-air. I have said so many times what I would do with protoss that I am not going to repeat it one more time.
Zerg anti-air seems to be fine right now. The only complaints about zerg anti-air I have ever heard were about no early game mobile anti-air.
Terrans dont seem to do so bad either with their marines. I dislike the thor and would like it to be replaced with a smaller unit, but I guess you are not going to do that. So instead I propose giving the thor bigger splash range (and perhaps higher damage) but making the attack NOT homing. So a thor would not hit targets that move quickly but it will deal very high damage against enemies that stand still or move slowly. I think this will encourage more micro and positional play without introducing any gimmicks and abilities.
--------------------------------------------------
By the way, I do not like the most recent changes but I have no alternative solution that goes without changing the game much further.
|
On July 29 2015 17:55 RoomOfMush wrote:
For ground anti-air. I have said so many times what I would do with protoss that I am not going to repeat it one more time.
Let me reread your suggestions there in this context specifically. Looking at your locked thread:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/closed-threads/489939-a-protoss-redesign-proposal
I see:
- Make the Immortal able to attack air units (together with other changes)
- Increase the movement speed of the Stalker and make the Blink cooldown shorter. (consequently, it would be easier to catch up with hostile air)
Immortal as an AA is definetely an option. Currently the Immortal has two weaknesses: air and a flood of small units (zerglings, marines, etc...). Adding anit-air option would allow the unit to fight armores air units as well. Against mutalisks it won't be that strong since it has no splash and is slow.
I understand in your concept you make a Stalker a dedicated harass unit, similarly to Starbow. Unfortunately, in SCI it remains more of a core unit. For that reason I am a bit worried about buffing its speed, even at a cost of reducing its health pool.
On July 29 2015 17:55 RoomOfMush wrote:
Zerg anti-air seems to be fine right now. The only complaints about zerg anti-air I have ever heard were about no early game mobile anti-air.
Early game you don't need a ton of AA, do you? Zerg has queens... mounting an attack is probably a bit more problematic though. But this is about timings I guess...
On July 29 2015 17:55 RoomOfMush wrote:
Terrans dont seem to do so bad either with their marines. I dislike the thor and would like it to be replaced with a smaller unit, but I guess you are not going to do that. So instead I propose giving the thor bigger splash range (and perhaps higher damage) but making the attack NOT homing. So a thor would not hit targets that move quickly but it will deal very high damage against enemies that stand still or move slowly. I think this will encourage more micro and positional play without introducing any gimmicks and abilities.
Marines do a fine job as a mobile anti-air. However, when Terran opts to go factory-heavy composition, there are less marines and they are not so well upgraded. That's why I am looking at Thor specifically.
I am worried however, that if the missiles are not-homing, it would become utterly useless against mutalisks.
On July 29 2015 17:55 RoomOfMush wrote:
By the way, I do not like the most recent changes but I have no alternative solution that goes without changing the game much further.
We can always revisit recent changes at some later time if we come up with some better ideas
|
Protoss:
You said yourself that protoss has very little ground anti-air. The Immortal is the only viable choice for more ground anti-air other then introducing another unit. But if the Immortal gets anti-air the lines between the Immortal and the Stalker are blurred even further especially since I believe you are going to remove the hardened shield (even blizzard finally saw that it was a horrible ability) and you also want to buff stalkers.
Zerg:
Zerg sometimes need early game mobile anti-air, for example when protoss goes heavy on void rays. Of course zerg could tech up to hydras, but the void rays need to be scouted for that and hydras are very expensive and easy to counter.
But as I said, its not too big of a problem. There are very few people who complain about that. Its not imbalanced, its just annoying.
Terran:
Thats why I suggested to make the splash bigger and increase damage. When I watch terrans use thors against mutalisks the thors usually get taken out by magic boxing mutas. They stay on top of the thors and kill them because thors splash attack only hits one muta at a time. This would become impossible with the proposed changes. Zerg players would now need to constantly keep moving away from the thor, if they ever stay still for just a second they will take heavy damage. And with removed regeneration the damage would hurt that much more.
The thor would not be that much for the damage output and more for scaring the mutas away. They will not dare to engage when thors are around in fear of slipping up with the micro.
|
On July 30 2015 17:18 RoomOfMush wrote:
Protoss:
You said yourself that protoss has very little ground anti-air. The Immortal is the only viable choice for more ground anti-air other then introducing another unit. But if the Immortal gets anti-air the lines between the Immortal and the Stalker are blurred even further especially since I believe you are going to remove the hardened shield (even blizzard finally saw that it was a horrible ability) and you also want to buff stalkers.
I am actually thinking about replacing hardened shield with an energy shield with similar mechanism but limited pool. But that's another story for a later discussion... Still, Stalker remains much more mobile than Immortal and it holds blink. I think a difference between these units remains.
On July 30 2015 17:18 RoomOfMush wrote:
Thats why I suggested to make the splash bigger and increase damage. When I watch terrans use thors against mutalisks the thors usually get taken out by magic boxing mutas. They stay on top of the thors and kill them because thors splash attack only hits one muta at a time. This would become impossible with the proposed changes. Zerg players would now need to constantly keep moving away from the thor, if they ever stay still for just a second they will take heavy damage. And with removed regeneration the damage would hurt that much more.
The thor would not be that much for the damage output and more for scaring the mutas away. They will not dare to engage when thors are around in fear of slipping up with the micro.
Mutas will fight thors not through magic boxing, but by flying in circles. Yes, it will be much more taxing on the attacker, but if done properly, I fear that the defender will be able to do nothing about it.
That's why I think:
- Set damage to "high payload" value
- Keep the splash, increase its range. It should touch nearby mutas during magic boxing, but also touch nearby Collosi when firing at them.
- Keep the homing behavior
|
On July 30 2015 20:12 BlackLilium wrote:Mutas will fight thors not through magic boxing, but by flying in circles. Yes, it will be much more taxing on the attacker, but if done properly, I fear that the defender will be able to do nothing about it. That's why I think: - Set damage to "high payload" value
- Keep the splash, increase its range. It should touch nearby mutas during magic boxing, but also touch nearby Collosi when firing at them.
- Keep the homing behavior
The defender will be able to do nothing about it? How about bringing in more anti-air?
The problem I see with your solution is that it might become a hard counter too easily. Thors > Mutas.
What I wanted with my solution was to give both sides a good chance. Thors can rip through mutas but mutas can still beat thors, it all depends on micro, position and situation.
Even if the missles of the thor are not homing, with a big splash radius and good missle speed they can still potentially deal damage to a flock of mutas, especially if the mutas get too close.
Imagine terrans chasing mutalisks with a thor in a speed boosted medivac and all the micro potential this can create.
|
OK, this will require careful balancing to ensure that it is possible and not OP in either way.
|
It is possible. I made an attack like that for the Vikings in my mod. They fire 4 missles at random offsets around the main target with each missle having a small splash area. The result is that a target may be hit by 1, 2, 3 or all 4 missles at once depending on its movement and speed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
