Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (113 users) | |
|
| Kabel Sweden. August 09 2012 04:16. Posts 921 | Profile # |
On August 09 2012 04:15 Garmer wrote:
remove inject, give spawn broodling to the queen
Please develop this. Why? How shall spawn broodling work? |
|
|
| Roblin Sweden. August 09 2012 04:23. Posts 834 | Profile # |
On August 09 2012 03:07 TaShadan wrote:"And the big bomb: Inject Larva has replaced Infect Creep.. " why did i open a poll? 
adding back inject larvae doesn't mean it won't be removed again in the future. the difference is this time it will be tested more thoroughly, to make sure it really is as bad and unfixable as everyone says.
On August 09 2012 02:37 Kabel wrote:...
Show nested quote +just change the dependencies for the abilities. Inject needs hive and transfuse needs lair.
True, that is easy to fix. But why shall Inject be a Hive ability? If is shall be in the game at all, why limit it to be used in the late game?
in my opinion, once you reach hive tech inject larvae is no longer necessary, and I would prefer creep (if I remembered spreading it, but then again, I forget using inject too) over additional (probably unnecessary by that point) larvae.
so having inject larvae on hive tech would make it more or less a wasted spell, since by that point you already have the larvae production you need to sustain a mid-game army, thus what purpose does a production boost have?
inject on lair tech however... that might be worth trying. perhaps even requiring an upgrade the way overlord drop does.
//Roblin
edit:
On August 09 2012 04:16 Kabel wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 04:15 Garmer wrote:
remove inject, give spawn broodling to the queen
Please develop this. Why? How shall spawn broodling work?
pretty sure he means an almost exact replica of this
edit2:
pm conversation between me and kabel, posted due to his request.
+ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +
Original Message From Kabel:
Great post!
Danko talked with me a while ago about Larva managment. If you have few larvas available at a time, you always must choose on how to use them at the current moment. More drones from your 12 larvas of 4 hatcheries? If you do, it will take some time before you will be able to build armies again. Will you use your larvas on cheap units like Zerglings, but they are are expensive in larva? And so on.. He said that that concept is nullified with Inject, since it gives you acess to so many larvas. Inflation!
Anyhow, it would be nice if Inject worked like Chrono boost and Calldown SCV. It gives you a minor bonus you can choose to use. If you don´t, then its not that big deal. Inject in SC2 is so great that you must use it. (60% bonus!)
I like the idea of "shutting" down the hatchery while it is injected. Overall, I like simple and elegant ideas. Of course it would be interesting with the choice of injecting ANY building, but the system that it requires to work will be to advanced and confusing.
Chrono boost is my favourite ability. It effects the timing of stuff, you can use it in so many ways, save it for a specific purpose or use it as soon as you can, and now you can even use it on cannons!
If Inject just makes a Hatchery spawn 2 extra larvas? And the hatchery can only store 5 as a maximum? Is that even worth it? Is the impact on larva management bad?
(Right now hatcheries replenishes a larva every 15 seconds.. standard sc2 values)
I like that the Queen is a high priority for harasmment. I dont feel it is in its current state.
Would it ever be worthwile injecting a hatchery if it is COMPLETELY shut down for, say 40 seconds? When the larvas pops it gets a huge bonus?
If you wanna play with numbers- both for small and big effects..
gah, gotta sleep
Original Message From Roblin: actually, i dont feel the need to reply to this post with any elaborate answer after almost a full day of having the community discuss it, I agree with what you suggest, and I whole-heartedly believe larvae inject can be tweaked to not be the biggest deal in the world, its simply a matter of finding the magical balance where it will be useful but won't take over all zerg gameplay. anything that I would otherwise have wanted to say have already been said in the thread, in general, I support your decision. //Roblin p.s. I understood before posting that massive inject-larvae-hate would instantly arise just by mentioning the possibility of adding back larvae inject, but then again if the community doesn't like the decision or doesn't know why it was done, then the outcry would be worse. so I asked first to make sure I had permission to stir some slight (read: very many violent) emotions. Original Message From Kabel: Yea : / I am only concerned if my numbers are wrong. What would be a decent value to give to Inject to get a "desired" effect? Is the numbers I have mentioned in the post to good? 2 extra larvas every 45 seconds? yea, its good until proven otherwise. some numbers on the ranges we are looking at: if a queen produces 2 larvae per minute, then it is exactly as good as a hatchery based on mineralcost of units. (hathery=300 gives 4, queen=150 gives 2) that means that productionwise, there is no difference between getting additional hatcheries and additional queens. the investment gives you the exact same larvae production. if a queen produces 4 larvae per minute, then it, by itself, is just as good as a hatchery, meaning 1 hatch+queen combo will probably very easily cover the income of 1 base. so think of the ranges like this: 0-1.9 : hatch+queen comboes give less production than if you had spent the money on only macro-hatcheries. queens will be built for creep spread and will later be used for boosting the production just because you have them lying around. or they are just sent to suicide somewhere. =2 : hatch+queen comboes give the same production as if you had spent the money on only hatcheries. queens will be built for creep and once you have enough for that purpose the player will build the much more durable and automatic hatcheries. 2.1-4 : hatch+queen comboes produce more than the same value of hatcheries, creating hatch+queen comboes is strictly better than getting hatcheries for the same amount (assuming there is no harrasment) 4.1-infinity: hatch+queen comboes are so good they must be used without exception. the number 4 here is diffuse, I'm not sure what the actual number for it is, but 4 is a decent enough placeholder which happens to be a milestone (1 queen = 1 hatchery in production). current SC2 has a number of 6. way too big. you have a number of 2.333 with your current settings. I would say any number that is greater than 2, but pretty close to 2 (so anything between 2 and 2.5, roughly), has the effect you are looking for. the closer to 2 you go, the less attractive larvae inject becomes, while still increasing production/minerals, numbers to be experimented with would be 2.2, 2.1, 2, 1.9 and maybe even 1.8 for reference of what happens when queens are worse than hatcheries. it might very well not be a bad thing. as you can see, numbers around 2 larvae/minute is the area of interest here.
+ Show Spoiler +
also, I see now that there was a question I forgot to answer:
Would it ever be worthwile injecting a hatchery if it is COMPLETELY shut down for, say 40 seconds? When the larvas pops it gets a huge bonus?
if you meant "COMPLETELY shut down" as in: cannot research, cannot train queens, cannot morph into higher tiers:
absolutely, most hatcheries are idle most of the time anyway.
if you meant "COMPLETELY shut down" as in: all of the above + does not train larvae by itself:
yes, if the reward is big enough.
more accurately: enough to compensate for the lost larvae + a bonus since you used queen energy to do it, perhaps even an additional bonus of 1 larvae to compensate for having to wait longer for it.
Last edit: 2012-08-09 05:21:26 |
| | I'm better today than I was yesterday! |
|
|
| MNdakota United States. August 09 2012 05:28. Posts 498 | Profile # | |
| | You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down. |
|
|
| TaShadan Germany. August 09 2012 05:34. Posts 691 | Profile # |
| Like the mathematical way you approach the problem Roblin, although sometimes it turns out different in the actual game. |
| | Warcraft 2.5 "http://www.moddb.com/mods/warcraft-25" a fast paced Broodwar/Warcraft2 style mod for Warcraft 3 TFT (without heroes) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=264386 | |
|
|
| Roblin Sweden. August 09 2012 05:48. Posts 834 | Profile # |
On August 09 2012 05:34 TaShadan wrote:
Like the mathematical way you approach the problem Roblin, although sometimes it turns out different in the actual game.
I know, for example, most of my math assumes some very unreasonable things, the most obvious one being perfect play.
lets say that queens produced 2.1 larvae every minute, that means it is slightly more efficient than a hatchery for its cost.
does that mean people will always build 1 queen for every hatchery? absolutely not. queens are way worse than hatcheries in one important aspect: they are not automatic.
however, this is not something measureable by math at first glance, where is the threshold where players start favoring automatic production over slightly more efficient production?
the answer comes from testing. |
| | I'm better today than I was yesterday! |
|
|
| MNdakota United States. August 09 2012 06:46. Posts 498 | Profile # |
| Is anyone playing on EU currently? |
| | You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down. |
|
|
| Roblin Sweden. August 09 2012 07:48. Posts 834 | Profile # |
actually, I think I will change my mind.
a number slightly lower than 2 is probably better, that means getting queens for the sake of production is a bad choice, but if you are going to use queens for other things anyway, then the option is there, and new players can still use inject larvae the same way they did in sc2, its just not the optimal way to play which they will soon learn.
also, that means the maximum potential for a single hathery is oh so slightly lower than with a number higher than 2.
im a little worried that inject larvae will make macro-hatcheries obsolete, I don't want that to happen personally.
so I suggest inject larvae spawns 1 larvae after 35 seconds or spawns 2 larvae after 65 seconds. (1.71 and 1.84 larvae/minute respectively)
or exactly 2 would fill the same purpose really.
but of course, thats just for after the current iteration of inject larvae has been properly tested
it may seem harsh, but the math says its justified, I'm willing to try it out ingame before rejecting it.
edit:
after sleeping on it, my official opinion is that exactly 2 has the greatest potential to be useful, but not overused.
motivation: those who wants to play using inject, can choose to do so, inject is not inherently worse than macrohatcheries.
and at the same time those who wants to use macrohatcheries can most certainly do so, I would even recommend it over using queens.
what I hope will happen is that some people will favor using queens for the extra abilities.
the reason I changed my mind at all is because people tend to assume they have the potential to play perfectly all the time, ignoring the reality that perfect play is pretty much inachieveable.
but if one assumes that it is possible to play perfectly, then that person will try to find the build which maximizes the efficiency, and practice that only. the problem is in this case that means making hatch+queen comboes. always. and that is what we wanted to avoid. unfortunately, this will happen regardless of what larvae production we use, aslong as it is strictly greater than 2. that is why I advocate exactly 2, since it is the largest number where inject is not inherently preferred over macrohatcheries.
I plan to play some games this evening, I'm going online about 20:00 (8:00 pm) CEST. which is 12 hours, 30 minutes from this post. I hope some people will join me.
now, off to work!Last edit: 2012-08-09 14:34:39 |
| | I'm better today than I was yesterday! |
|
|
| Kabel Sweden. August 10 2012 00:50. Posts 921 | Profile # |
--- New update on EU ---
Vultures can move over enemy Spider mines without causing them to explode.
Hydra den cost increased from 100/50 to 100/100.
Nerve jammer only effects ground units and not buildings!
Stalker has a range upgrade at the Cybernetics core.
(This increases the range from 5 to 6 and costs 100/100. It is not enough to outrange bunkers)
Join the Starbow chat channel if you wanna play!
Last edit: 2012-08-10 00:51:12 |
|
|
 Xitac Germany. August 10 2012 01:45. Posts 25 | Profile # |
| less deathballs more multitasking i can only hope blizzard will put sc2 a little bit further in this direction |
|
|
| Kabel Sweden. August 10 2012 02:57. Posts 921 | Profile # |
Many players say that Protoss feels kinda... dull. Not so exiting or interesting to play as. I would like to hear more thoughts on what the problem with the race might be, and also suggestions on how to improve it!
: )
And dont forget to join the Starbow chat channel on EU! We have some great games going now! |
|
|
| 0neder United States. August 10 2012 03:45. Posts 3732 | Profile # |
I would give blink to DTs, and beef up stalkers/dragoons a bit to make them even more few/strong.
Maybe give a weaker hardened shield to dragoons that is upgraded at the twilight council and takes a while? Maybe it could be upgraded at the robotics support bay to make getting the upgrade more of a commitment?
How about adding another robotics unit?
What if the sentry became a beefier robotics spell caster? It could have a more expensive but larger forcefield, maybe time bomb instead of forcefield so ramps can't be completely blocked in a base race. Maybe it could have a shield battery mode like the phase prism has a phase mode. There are lots of cool things you could do with this.
What if you brought back the colossus with it's original void-ray style attack and replace the void ray with something else? The Colossus art design sucks though, you'd have to find a better version that looks a bit more believable, but the attack could be buffed because bringing it to a ground unit would be a nerd.
It would also be cool to experiment with how the Arbiter's original abilities could evolve or adapt to SC2. What if it could switch between the ability to passively cloak and passively be a warp-in point on the move?
Is Terran salvage still applicable to all buildings? If not, I think that should stay. It could be easily balanced with duration and percentage returns and even if rarely used would be a cool race feature if applied more broadly.
Maybe the sentry could get a defensive matrix type spell rather than a hardened shield ability for maskable units. This would be more in line with the BW Protoss few/strong paradigm, and it kind of always fit them better anyway.Last edit: 2012-08-10 07:22:48 |
|
|
| SoniC_eu Denmark. August 10 2012 03:50. Posts 781 | Profile # |
| This is utterly fantastic...love the warp in mechanic and FF change for toss! And finally the tank gets the dmg is deserves! |
| | In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure. http://da.twitch.tv/sonic_eu |
|
|
| pzea469 United States. August 10 2012 06:52. Posts 1470 | Profile Blog # |
On August 10 2012 03:45 0neder wrote:
I would give blink to DTs, and beef up stalkers/dragoons a bit to make them even more few/strong.
Thank you.
Dragoons are way more fitting and microing them felt better with their attack delay and range upgrade, the way you had them before. And that way blink can go to DTs. Allowing a huge bulk of your army to blink just makes blink dull and not interesting. Give it to DTs for precision strikes as well as making DTs much more interesting. Make it an upgrade. Maybe even make it so that when it blinks, any unit, friendly or enemy that is within melee radius of the DT gets blinked with it. Nightcrawler style, especially with the smoke effect Zeratul has. Massive and flying units wouldn't be affected. I could see a lot of micro potential for that, for both saving a friendly unit or blinking an enemy unit into friendlies. So then the goon range upgrade can be back on the cyber, blink upgrade on the templar archives, and the twilight council could maybe get the zealot shield upgrade back that it had before, making the twilight council a place where you upgrade your zealots.
Even if you don't want to bring goons back and keep the stalkers, I still suggest putting blink on dt, stalker/goon range upgrade on the cyber, blink upgrade on the templar archives, and zealot armor on the twilight council. |
| |
|
| Kabel Sweden. August 10 2012 07:49. Posts 921 | Profile # |
+ Show Spoiler +
On August 10 2012 03:45 0neder wrote:
I would give blink to DTs, and beef up stalkers/dragoons a bit to make them even more few/strong.
Maybe give a weaker hardened shield to dragoons that is upgraded at the twilight council and takes a while? Maybe it could be upgraded at the robotics support bay to make getting the upgrade more of a commitment?
How about adding another robotics unit?
What if the sentry became a beefier robotics spell caster? It could have a more expensive but larger forcefield, maybe time bomb instead of forcefield so ramps can't be completely blocked in a base race. Maybe it could have a shield battery mode like the phase prism has a phase mode. There are lots of cool things you could do with this.
What if you brought back the colossus with it's original void-ray style attack and replace the void ray with something else? The Colossus art design sucks though, you'd have to find a better version that looks a bit more believable, but the attack could be buffed because bringing it to a ground unit would be a nerd.
It would also be cool to experiment with how the Arbiter's original abilities could evolve or adapt to SC2. What if it could switch between the ability to passively cloak and passively be a warp-in point on the move?
Is Terran salvage still applicable to all buildings? If not, I think that should stay. It could be easily balanced with duration and percentage returns and even if rarely used would be a cool race feature if applied more broadly.
Maybe the sentry could get a defensive matrix type spell rather than a hardened shield ability for maskable units. This would be more in line with the BW Protoss few/strong paradigm, and it kind of always fit them better anyway.
You have many interesting ideas. But almost all of them you mention requires a bit of work. To build a completely new ability is a risk. It takes lot of effort and then when it is added to the game it might not fit anymore.. As you say, there are lots of stuff that can be done with the Colossus, Sentrys, Arbiters etc, but since my time is limited I generally aim to take the more simple solutions first. Adding a range upgrade to Stalkers, change stats, etc are generally what I aim for more.
+ Show Spoiler +
Dragoons are way more fitting and microing them felt better with their attack delay and range upgrade, the way you had them before. And that way blink can go to DTs. Allowing a huge bulk of your army to blink just makes blink dull and not interesting. Give it to DTs for precision strikes as well as making DTs much more interesting. Make it an upgrade. Maybe even make it so that when it blinks, any unit, friendly or enemy that is within melee radius of the DT gets blinked with it. Nightcrawler style, especially with the smoke effect Zeratul has. Massive and flying units wouldn't be affected. I could see a lot of micro potential for that, for both saving a friendly unit or blinking an enemy unit into friendlies. So then the goon range upgrade can be back on the cyber, blink upgrade on the templar archives, and the twilight council could maybe get the zealot shield upgrade back that it had before, making the twilight council a place where you upgrade your zealots.
Even if you don't want to bring goons back and keep the stalkers, I still suggest putting blink on dt, stalker/goon range upgrade on the cyber, blink upgrade on the templar archives, and zealot armor on the twilight council.
I like Dragoons too, in their powerful form. I had them with Blink & Warp in as well, and that was just... too good. So Dragoons got nerfed.. and nerfed... and nerfed... and they ended up like the Stalker. 
I think that choosing between Dragoons & Stalkers, stalkes is the more interesting unit. True that Blink is not an unique ability since half your army can use it. But is that really a problem? Its an ability that benefits micro and is useful in so many situations.
Regarding Blink on DTs, Ive tried that earlier. It was too good. Way too good. It was so easy avoiding the enemy detecion.. and you could enter the enemys base everywhere! |
|
|
| 0neder United States. August 10 2012 08:35. Posts 3732 | Profile # |
Thanks for the response. I'm also busy as I have contributed nothing to Starbow beyond ideas. =) However I think you're definitely going in the right direction!
Don't get me wrong. I LOVE early game range upgrades. I think those were a crucial part of BW's early stability and back-and-forth that most people forget about. They're not essential but they're a nice option that limits early game pressure without making arbitrary rules (like depot required for rax).
I would suggest nerfing blink but trying it again on DTs. Maybe decrease the range by a decent amount? Maybe lengthen the cool down? Maybe make it an upgrade? Maybe you could make it a sustained ability - EG it takes 5 seconds before you reappear and can continue moving?
I think the other ideas have merit too, though. Maybe I'll work on that sentry concept for a bit.Last edit: 2012-08-10 08:50:35 |
|
|
| 0neder United States. August 10 2012 08:38. Posts 3732 | Profile # |
| It would be cool if warp-in time was more dramatically affected by unit strength. EG a dragoon might take 8 seconds to warp in instead of 3 for a zealot, etc. This would definitely help balance dragoon warp-in harass and give warp-in more depth. An HT might be 10 or 12? Last edit: 2012-08-10 08:39:18 |
|
|
| TaShadan Germany. August 10 2012 16:24. Posts 691 | Profile # |
| Btw you should think about new maps also. If you have a look at bw map designs, in most cases the 3rd expo isnt that easy to take or its a mineral only. We should atleast try new map designs. |
| | Warcraft 2.5 "http://www.moddb.com/mods/warcraft-25" a fast paced Broodwar/Warcraft2 style mod for Warcraft 3 TFT (without heroes) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=264386 | |
|
|
| MNdakota United States. August 10 2012 16:30. Posts 498 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 16:24 TaShadan wrote:
Btw you should think about new maps also. If you have a look at bw map designs, in most cases the 3rd expo isnt that easy to take or its a mineral only. We should atleast try new map designs.
Agreed. |
| | You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down. |
|
|
| Kabel Sweden. August 10 2012 19:23. Posts 921 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 16:24 TaShadan wrote:
Btw you should think about new maps also. If you have a look at bw map designs, in most cases the 3rd expo isnt that easy to take or its a mineral only. We should atleast try new map designs.
I am constantly looking for new maps. I regulary PM mapmakers on this site and asks them if I can use their maps with Starbow. Many never answear, some say no but some say yes 
I have one good new map coming up from a MoTM contest, where a mapmaker said he would send his map to me in a couple of days. (When he has polished it)
---
Protoss. Some players says that Protoss lacks options and are not so interesting to play. I need to hear more thoughts from you all. Why is it like this?
Is it early aggresion that feels bad?
Few tech choices?
Weak units?
Suggestions on how to improve areas that Protoss lacks?Last edit: 2012-08-10 19:24:19 |
|
|
| Roblin Sweden. August 10 2012 19:54. Posts 834 | Profile # |
On August 10 2012 19:23 Kabel wrote:
Show nested quote +On August 10 2012 16:24 TaShadan wrote:
Btw you should think about new maps also. If you have a look at bw map designs, in most cases the 3rd expo isnt that easy to take or its a mineral only. We should atleast try new map designs.
I am constantly looking for new maps. I regulary PM mapmakers on this site and asks them if I can use their maps with Starbow. Many never answear, some say no but some say yes I have one good new map coming up from a MoTM contest, where a mapmaker said he would send his map to me in a couple of days. (When he has polished it) --- Protoss. Some players says that Protoss lacks options and are not so interesting to play. I need to hear more thoughts from you all. Why is it like this? Is it early aggresion that feels bad? Few tech choices? Weak units? Suggestions on how to improve areas that Protoss lacks?
define interesting to play.
then compare that definition to current protoss gameplay.
then you will have your answer.
it won't be easy but...
now you have your method to find the answer, get cracking.
I won't do this myself because of 2 reasons:
a) my definition of interesting to play is probably different from other people, as a matter of fact, everyone probably has their own definition.
b) I don't play protoss, so I have nothing to compare my definition to.
but for those interested in what I think is interesting:
Interesting to play
for a game to be interesting to play, choices must be non-trivial.
that is a very loose definition by the way.
//Roblin |
| | I'm better today than I was yesterday! |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 100 200 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 Next | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
