PDA

View Full Version : Obelisk -vs- Orbital Command



n00bonicPlague
06-20-2009, 02:27 AM
I've been doing some thinking about the Obelisk, comparing it to the Orbital Command.
In this thinking I have found what the OC has in surplus and the Obelisk lacks heavily:
-- the ability to save you time and resources
-- a virtually limitless level of mobility

MULE Drop saves time and resources you would've spent on building SCVs. Call Down Extra Supplies saves time and resources you would've spent on building Supply Depots. Scanner Sweep saves time and resources you would've spent on building Turrets, Sensor Towers, and Ravens. This creates true competition between all of the abilities that the OC has. Also, the OC can cast all of its abilities anywhere on the map, making them useful no matter what the situation.

The Obelisk, however, has only one ability that can save you significant time and resources: Proton Charge. The other two abilities -- Shield Regeneration and Energy Regeneration -- can save you some time and maybe some resources, but the Obelisk's lack of mobility and its limited casting range prevents those two abilities from being readily available, thus causing them to be rarely used, which then leads to poor competition between the abilities. Ultimately, the only ability that is frequently used is Proton Charge.

To solve this problem, there are two major things that need to be done. First, we need at least one more ability that can save a significant amount of time and resources, and thus provide enough weight to balance against Proton Charge. Second, we need to give these abilities mobility, but without directly copying the OC's unlimited range. There are many ways that this can be achieved, but I suggest the following.

First, make the Nexus and Obelisk share a communal energy bank, where each Obelisk increases the storage size of the bank and each Nexus increases the recharge rate of the bank. Next, create an ability called Psionic Flux, which permanently increases a target pylon's psi supply and radius of psionic influence, but only once per pylon. This ability will save time and resources that would've been spent on constructing additional pylons. Then, give Proton Charge and Psionic Flux to the Nexus, while leaving Shield Regen. and Energy Regen. with the Obelisk. Finally, the Obelisk should not provide psi supply, but it should provide a small radius of pylon power which allows it to act as a warp-in point for Warp Gates.

The suggestions in the above paragraph should solve the Obelisk's problems and provide a well integrated macro system for the Protoss. Naturally, all numbers are subject to balance.



Anyway, wadda yous guys think?

Nicol Bolas
06-20-2009, 03:46 AM
The other two abilities -- Shield Regeneration and Energy Regeneration -- can save you some time and maybe some resources, but the Obelisk's lack of mobility and its limited casting range prevents those two abilities from being readily available, thus causing them to be rarely used, which then leads to poor competition between the abilities.

Total fail on your analysis. What leads to poor competition between these abilities is the fact that it is cheap. You have have lots of them.

OCCs require a command center, so you can't exactly spam them. You are therefore bound to the energy recharge rate of 2-3 of them at most. Obelisks are fairly cheap. If you have a position you want to hold, you can easily throw one or two down and use its abilities to help you hold it. This is in addition to the ones in your base that are throwing down Proton Charge.

There's no contention because each Obelisk is separate.


Anyway, wadda yous guys think?

It's a patch. It's taking a mechanic that doesn't work and putting in arbitrary rules to make it work.

It would be better to tear the mechanic down and start over from scratch.

MattII
06-20-2009, 05:05 AM
I'd like to add more, but I think Nicol's already covered all the bases.

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 10:51 AM
I've been doing some thinking about the Obelisk, comparing it to the Orbital Command.
In this thinking I have found what the OC has in surplus and the Obelisk lacks heavily:
-- the ability to save you time and resources
-- a virtually limitless level of mobility

MULE Drop saves time and resources you would've spent on building SCVs. Call Down Extra Supplies saves time and resources you would've spent on building Supply Depots. Scanner Sweep saves time and resources you would've spent on building Turrets, Sensor Towers, and Ravens. This creates true competition between all of the abilities that the OC has. Also, the OC can cast all of its abilities anywhere on the map, making them useful no matter what the situation.

The Obelisk, however, has only one ability that can save you significant time and resources: Proton Charge. The other two abilities -- Shield Regeneration and Energy Regeneration -- can save you some time and maybe some resources, but the Obelisk's lack of mobility and its limited casting range prevents those two abilities from being readily available, thus causing them to be rarely used, which then leads to poor competition between the abilities. Ultimately, the only ability that is frequently used is Proton Charge.

To solve this problem, there are two major things that need to be done. First, we need at least one more ability that can save a significant amount of time and resources, and thus provide enough weight to balance against Proton Charge. Second, we need to give these abilities mobility, but without directly copying the OC's unlimited range. There are many ways that this can be achieved, but I suggest the following.


Wow you have a great understanding of the situation. I think your approach might actually work. One question, how does this idea of saved resources relate to the queen? I wouldnt do the upgrade pylon idea simply because call-down supplies and (i think) overseer already increase supply.



Total fail on your analysis. What leads to poor competition between these abilities is the fact that it is cheap. You have have lots of them.


Queen only costs 150 minerals and it still has good competition between abilities.

Pandonetho
06-20-2009, 11:16 AM
Don't Queen's cost food?

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 11:17 AM
In BR3 we saw the zerg player get 4 or 5. In comparison the protoss player had 1 or 2 at each of his bases. But you never see threads worried about spamming queens.

Aldrius
06-20-2009, 11:31 AM
Because Queens are units that cost food.

And they're capped by your number of hatcheries... and they don't technically have abilities that give you minerals.

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 11:58 AM
Because Queens are units that cost food.

And they're capped by your number of hatcheries... and they don't technically have abilities that give you minerals.
All true points. None the less you still see queens being spammed more than Obelisks. I think we might be overreacting here.

DemolitionSquid
06-20-2009, 12:03 PM
All true points. None the less you still see queens being spammed more than Obelisks. I think we might be overreacting here.

We only have one video of multiple Queens, and there were multiple because Lee kept losing his in attacks, and they're the earliest GtA. If you aren't good enough to keep them alive I fully expect you to have multiples because the only way you can compete is with that constant stream of larva. DK only built two Obelisks because, as I have said DOZENS of times, that's likely the number needed to maintain a steady Proton Charge because the ability is nothing but a fucking APM sink.

Nicol Bolas
06-20-2009, 01:59 PM
DK only built two Obelisks because, as I have said DOZENS of times, that's likely the number needed to maintain a steady Proton Charge because the ability is nothing but a fucking APM sink.

The video provides direct physical evidence that 2 is not enough to keep Proton Charge up 100% of the time. Remember the Banelings that killed a bunch of Probes in the main? They didn't have Proton Charge up for the duration of that attack.

That's not to say that PC isn't an APM sink, however. Only that 2 Obelisks isn't enough to keep PC up permanently.

DemolitionSquid
06-20-2009, 02:11 PM
The video provides direct physical evidence that 2 is not enough to keep Proton Charge up 100% of the time. Remember the Banelings that killed a bunch of Probes in the main? They didn't have Proton Charge up for the duration of that attack.

That's not to say that PC isn't an APM sink, however. Only that 2 Obelisks isn't enough to keep PC up permanently.

Oh yes, you're so right. Lets ignore that DK isn't a pro and probably forgot to cast the ability a couple times because his attention was focused on killing things.

2-4 is the number of Obelisks I expect to maintain constant PC. I've said it innumerable times.

SaharaDrac
06-20-2009, 03:04 PM
Calling Proton Charge "nothing but a fucking APM sink" is short-sighted and unfair. What would be an APM sink is if you had to click proton charge every so often or your probes just STOP mining. That would add base management and APM, but it wouldn't give you any benefit, only stop a detriment.

You GAIN something from Proton Charge. Something significant. If it's just an APM sink, then so is building supply depots, reseraching upgrades and spells, and having to manually build every worker, rather than just typing in a number and it building them continuously as resources allow. Why do I have to go back to my base and build these stupid little boxes just to keep playing? What a BS APM sink, Blizzard. God.

If you're going to attack a sound RTS game mechanic, then how about you suggest a base management, macro-oriented Protoss mechanic that ISN'T an "APM sink", and explain why?

n00bonicPlague
06-20-2009, 03:04 PM
Total fail on your analysis.
Wow you have a great understanding of the situation.The differences in opinion are catastrophically astounding. :D

DemolitionSquid
06-20-2009, 04:08 PM
Calling Proton Charge "nothing but a fucking APM sink" is short-sighted and unfair. What would be an APM sink is if you had to click proton charge every so often or your probes just STOP mining. That would add base management and APM, but it wouldn't give you any benefit, only stop a detriment.

You GAIN something from Proton Charge. Something significant. If it's just an APM sink, then so is building supply depots, reseraching upgrades and spells, and having to manually build every worker, rather than just typing in a number and it building them continuously as resources allow. Why do I have to go back to my base and build these stupid little boxes just to keep playing? What a BS APM sink, Blizzard. God.

If you're going to attack a sound RTS game mechanic, then how about you suggest a base management, macro-oriented Protoss mechanic that ISN'T an "APM sink", and explain why?

Proton Charge a "sound" RTS game mechanic? That's disgusting.

An APM sink is anything which exists solely to create macro though busywork. It requires no strategy, merely a memorization of timing. The nature of Proton Charge makes it required to do every x seconds or else your economy will fall behind. The mechanic isn't there as a pacer, like making buildings. Its not there for strategy, like "do I build a cybernetics core or another 2 zealots?" Its there to appease the pro gamers who bitch that SC2 lacked enough macro. Not because its a "sound" mechanic.

I have also suggested multiple non-busywork, non-APM sink macro mechanics over the 2 years I've been on this site.

MattII
06-20-2009, 04:19 PM
There are two ways I can think of solving this:
1. The Obelisk is a costly upgrade of the Pylon (50/100-150)
2. The Obelisk is an alternate form of the Pylon (ie, the pylon looses its power radius to gain the abilities)

I have to admit though, neither of those ideas really solve the issue. What the Obelisk really needs is an increased price, a toned down PC, and some properly useful combat abilities, something so you have to make a real choice about where you place it.

Pandonetho
06-20-2009, 04:29 PM
Not sure about this but I think at one point in time I read somewhere that Proton charge lasted 40 seconds.

DemolitionSquid
06-20-2009, 04:49 PM
Not sure about this but I think at one point in time I read somewhere that Proton charge lasted 40 seconds.

I know its between 20 and 40, I'm leaning toward 40. Given we know PC costs 50 energy, and relating that to the energy regen of SC1, that's why I predict u'll currently need 2-3 Obelisks to sustain a constant PC.

SlickR
06-20-2009, 04:52 PM
you forget that you need to choose from 2 CC modes!

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 04:57 PM
Oh yes, you're so right. Lets ignore that DK isn't a pro and probably forgot to cast the ability a couple times because his attention was focused on killing things.

2-4 is the number of Obelisks I expect to maintain constant PC. I've said it innumerable times.


Can you please not guess at these kinda things. We have one video of queens and obelisks in action. It shows that queens are spammed more than obelisks. Untill you get another video that shows obelisks are spammed more you really dont have any evidence to support your claims.

In short saying "oh this guy just used it to much and this guy not enough" isnt a convincing arguement at all.



You GAIN something from Proton Charge. Something significant. If it's just an APM sink, then so is building supply depots, reseraching upgrades and spells, and having to manually build every worker, rather than just typing in a number and it building them continuously as resources allow. Why do I have to go back to my base and build these stupid little boxes just to keep playing?

Very good points SaharaDrac. The back to base mechanic is fundamental to the micro macro tension that starcraft must have. Supply is an example of it as is proton charge. People just dont realize supply is because they are used to it.

That being said I do think that we can create better tension on the Obelisk if we make the other two abilities better (more useful). For instance Recharge shields is a good abilitity but could be made even more useful if it recharged HP.

DemolitionSquid
06-20-2009, 06:11 PM
you forget that you need to choose from 2 CC modes!

No, you're choosing between increased income which can be used to build anything including defensive units, and a purely defensive unit. There is no choice, no professional player will build PF's.


Can you please not guess at these kinda things. We have one video of queens and obelisks in action. It shows that queens are spammed more than obelisks. Untill you get another video that shows obelisks are spammed more you really dont have any evidence to support your claims.

In short saying "oh this guy just used it to much and this guy not enough" isnt a convincing arguement at all.

I said nothing about spamming Obelisks more than Queens. I said it that you would see 2-4 Obelisks in each mineral patch to maintain maximim Proton Charge, given known stats that I posted for all to calculate for themselves. I fully expect there to be more Queens than Obelisks because Proton Charge is completely predictable. My guess is as accurate and informed as possible.


Very good points SaharaDrac. The back to base mechanic is fundamental to the micro macro tension that starcraft must have. Supply is an example of it as is proton charge. People just dont realize supply is because they are used to it.

Introducing a back to base mechanic purely for the sake of creating back to base mechanic does not a good mechanic make. Proton Charge only exists because pros judge their skill based on how fast they click, and they're nostalgic for the limited UI of SC1.

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 06:14 PM
Introducing a back to base mechanic purely for the sake of creating back to base mechanic does not a good mechanic make.
No proton charge is not solely for the sake of having the player go back to the base. Proton charge allows you to build more units. Just like supply depots do. Both accomplish this by requiring the player to go back to the base but its not solely for that reason. Your confusing the task with the reward.



Proton Charge only exists because pros judge their skill based on how fast they click, and they're nostalgic for the limited UI of SC1.

and thats the kinda of mischarectorization that caused so many problems during the MBS Wars. Thank you for continueing it.

DemolitionSquid
06-20-2009, 06:27 PM
No proton charge is not solely for the sake of having the player go back to the base. Proton charge allows you to build more units. Just like supply depots do. Both accomplish this by requiring the player to go back to the base but its not solely for that reason. Your confusing the task with the reward.

How ignorant can you get?
Its about the basics, man. You will not always need more supply. You WILL always need minerals. Supply has a limit, which once reached kills the mechanic. PC suffers from no such limit, it can and must be used for the entire game. The mechanic gets exponentially more powerful the more Probes you cast it on. The mechanic essentially creates the Carrier's "mass effect syndrome (MES)" problem in a macro means. Which should be obvious to EVERYONE as a really fucking bad thing. And no, Larva and MULEs do not suffer from MES.


and thats the kinda of mischarectorization that caused so many problems during the MBS Wars. Thank you for continueing it.

Again, no, its the kind of truth that you're obviously blind to for some unknown reason I won't even attempt to understand because its clear its completely illogical. The mechanic is bullshit. It is elitist, highly imbalanced (and will remain so by its very nature to control massive amounts of resources), and is frankly boring and tedious.

But you know what? I've had this argument too many times before. There is no doubt in my mind this mechanic could potentially ruin the game. We will see at beta.

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 06:37 PM
Its about the basics, man. You will not always need more supply. You WILL always need minerals. Supply has a limit, which once reached kills the mechanic.


That limit is 200 supply. Minerals also have a limit when they run out in which case you do not need to use proton charge any more. Both of these occur in the late game.

DemolitionSquid
06-20-2009, 06:42 PM
That limit is 200 supply. Minerals also have a limit when they run out in which case you do not need to use proton charge any more. Both of these occur in the late game.

Have you SEEN the new multiplayer maps? The newest BR showcased a map called Scrapyard. That map contained more resources than anyone could ever hope to go through in 20 minutes, the average length of a SC game. Heck, there were so many minerals they'd be hard pressed to mine it all in a few hours.

And, AS YOU YOURSELF have said, income rate is more important than total resources. How can you not see a critical mass mechanic as anything but a disaster?

warrior6
06-20-2009, 06:45 PM
archer, the proton charge unlike other more intelligent macro mechanics, sucks because there is no real reason not to do it every X seconds. there has to be a real draw back to doing proton charge which there isn't. with the terrans, they have to choose between 2 diff types of command centers, the fact that their CC might lose its flight capability and they have to choose between scanner sweeps and mules. the protoss on the other hand do not have this kind of synergistic balance between their macro mechanics.

the problem is, proton charge isnt even interesting or cool. its very dull and boring.

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 08:10 PM
Again, no, its the kind of truth that you're obviously blind to for some unknown reason I won't even attempt to understand because its clear its completely illogical. The mechanic is bullshit. It is elitist, highly imbalanced (and will remain so by its very nature to control massive amounts of resources), and is frankly boring and tedious.

But you know what? I've had this argument too many times before. There is no doubt in my mind this mechanic could potentially ruin the game. We will see at beta.

Calling people ignorant and storming off is not going to solve anything. What we should do is try to find common ground as we have before. For instance I would be willing to decrease the frequency with which proton charge is cast (and increase the potency) if we can find some other macro increaseing mechanic for the protoss base. This new mechanic can support proton charge so that no one mechanic is cast frequently out of reptition.

Look I love Starcraft. You love Starcraft. We both want whats best for the game and we happen to have differences of oppinion on some issues. That does not make either of us the villian and the sooner both parties realize this the sooner we can resolve these issues.




archer, the proton charge unlike other more intelligent macro mechanics, sucks because there is no real reason not to do it every X seconds.

Psi Storm sucks because there is no real reason not to do it every X seconds.

BTW I hate to keep using this same analogy but until you guys start coming up with reasons that arnt applicable to psi storm im going to have to. And of course your going to reply by saying something else about psi storm is different from proton charge as if it makes a difference. What you should do is start arguing with that something thats not applicable to psi storm from the get go. Then we can save ourselves allot of touble.


the problem is, proton charge isnt even interesting or cool. its very dull and boring.

Personal preference. Personally I think having more zealots and overrunnig you with them is quite exciting.

DemolitionSquid
06-20-2009, 08:39 PM
Calling people ignorant and storming off is not going to solve anything. What we should do is try to find common ground as we have before. For instance I would be willing to decrease the frequency with which proton charge is cast (and increase the potency) if we can find some other macro increaseing mechanic for the protoss base. This new mechanic can support proton charge so that no one mechanic is cast frequently out of reptition.

Look I love Starcraft. You love Starcraft. We both want whats best for the game and we happen to have differences of oppinion on some issues. That does not make either of us the villian and the sooner both parties realize this the sooner we can resolve these issues.[/quote[]

There is no common ground. In my mind the mechanic is fundamentally flawed and the only solution to it is to scrap it. "Decrease the frequency with which proton charge is cast (and increase the potency)" won't fix the problem, because that's not the problem. The problem is that it serves no purpose beyond being an APM sink, and an imbalanced one at that. Its a build order inclusion, nothing more. It requires the player to perfect its use to an extreme that only pro gamers can achieve. It will ruin the game for any casual players because its not fun, its just busywork, and it provides no strategy beyond "get it asap or your economy will suffer by a HUGE margin."


[QUOTE=ArcherofAiur;8061]Psi Storm sucks because there is no real reason not to do it every X seconds.

But Psi Storm doesn't suck. You could build enough HT to cast Psi Storm forever. But Just having HT casting Storm cannot win you a game. You need diversity, you need a unit who can damage buildings. Proton Charge DOES suck because there is a real reason to do every x seconds. That reason is if you don't, your economy will suffer exponentially against your opponent who is using it. Every time you forget it, or are even off by a second, you will lose the economic battle. It takes the already intense resource rush to another level. A level that I feel will provide far more frustration than fun.


BTW I hate to keep using this same analogy but until you guys start coming up with reasons that arnt applicable to psi storm im going to have to. And of course your going to reply by saying something else about psi storm is different from proton charge as if it makes a difference. What you should do is start arguing with that something thats not applicable to psi storm from the get go. Then we can save ourselves allot of touble.

Psi Storm is a choice. You can not use it and try another strategy. PC removes choice - if your economy is going to keep up or surpass your opponent, you will HAVE to use it. That's the difference.


Personal preference. Personally I think having more zealots and overrunnig you with them is quite exciting.

Of course having more zealots and overrunning with them is quite exciting. That was never the argument. The argument is that having to click PC every 40 seconds to achieve that goal is NOT fun or exciting. And yes, I know that clicking on a Gateway to build a Zealot isn't fun or exciting either, but its also not mandatory. PC will be, that's the problem.

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 09:43 PM
There is no common ground. In my mind the mechanic is fundamentally flawed and the only solution to it is to scrap it. "Decrease the frequency with which proton charge is cast (and increase the potency)" won't fix the problem, because that's not the problem. The problem is that it serves no purpose beyond being an APM sink, and an imbalanced one at that. Its a build order inclusion, nothing more. It requires the player to perfect its use to an extreme that only pro gamers can achieve. It will ruin the game for any casual players because its not fun, its just busywork, and it provides no strategy beyond "get it asap or your economy will suffer by a HUGE margin."


so yah if your not even willing to look for common ground then your right we wont find any. Luckily there are allot of other posters who are more willing to work towards a solution acceptable to both sides.





But Psi Storm doesn't suck. You could build enough HT to cast Psi Storm forever. But Just having HT casting Storm cannot win you a game. You need diversity, you need a unit who can damage buildings.

"But Proton Charge doesn't suck. You could build enough Obelisks to cast Proton Charge forever. But Just having Obelisks casting Proton Charge cannot win you a game. You need diversity, you need a unit who can damage buildings."

See you did the exact thing i said you would do. You said no its different and then discribed something completly different about than what we were talking about (for reference we were talking about whether x every second spells were bad). Please replace proton charge with psi storm in your post before posting to see if you are making this same mistake again.

Aldrius
06-20-2009, 09:46 PM
Psi Storm sucks because there is no real reason not to do it every X seconds.

Um...

Yes there is.

You can...

A) Hit your own units.
B) The High Templar is much more expensive and has less of a purpose. So a dead High Templar is 150 wasted gas, and a poorly utilized High Templar is 150 wasted gas.
C) Not be able to cast whatever secondary ability the High Templar ends up with. Which is almost guaranteed to be more useful than the recharge energy/shield ability is, at least in terms of where the High Templar will be.

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 09:51 PM
A) Hit your own units..
I mean cast on enemy units. Just like when you say cast proton charge its implied that your casting on your probes.



B) The High Templar is much more expensive and has less of a purpose. So a dead High Templar is 150 wasted gas, and a poorly utilized High Templar is 150 wasted gas.
If you have a high templar one of the reasons you dont want to cast psi storm is that it costs allot? Id say if you invest that much into teching to high templar you darn well better use them.


C) Not be able to cast whatever secondary ability the High Templar ends up with. Which is almost guaranteed to be more useful than the recharge energy/shield ability is, at least in terms of where the High Templar will bec
The funny thing about that is that untill recently the HT secondary ability was shield recharge.

MattII
06-20-2009, 10:05 PM
I mean cast on enemy units. Just like when you say cast proton charge its implied that your casting on your probes.

Proton Charge doesn't affect anything else, Psi Storm does, so you have to be careful using Storm, not so with PC.


If you have a high templar one of the reasons you dont want to cast psi storm is that it costs allot? Id say if you invest that much into teching to high templar you darn well better use them.

Storm lasts about 3 seconds and costs 75 energy, PC lasts 30 seconds at the moment, and costs 50. You have to be a lot more careful with Storm than with PC, which is just a case of point-and-click.

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 10:09 PM
You have to be a lot more careful with Storm than with PC, which is just a case of point-and-click.

Agreed. Thats why I think it should have a much smaller radius.

Or we could find another mechanic that increases resource gathering.

Nicol Bolas
06-20-2009, 10:32 PM
Agreed. Thats why I think it should have a much smaller radius.

You're misunderstanding the point.

Good gameplay is about decision making. If I can program a computer to do it correctly with 100% fidelity, without anything approaching a neural network or some other kind of learning algorithm, it is not decision making.

Proton Charge is an ability you use every X seconds. There is no thought, no intelligence to it. Either you keep up with the timer or you lose income. End of story.

PC doesn't contend with anything in a meaningful way the way Mules and Spawn Larva do. Every Mule you make is energy you don't spend on scans. That's one less scan to reveal a DT trashing your base. Every Mule is an investment in resources for the future; supply calldown is saving minerals in the present. These two mechanics both provide you with a net gain in minerals, but they do it at different times.

Unless it can be made to contend with other abilities, thus creating real gameplay, it is a fundamentally mindless mechanic. The radius of the ability or how long it takes to cast are not going to help. Mindless mechanics are a priori bad and can only be made good by making them not mindless.

Finding common ground with a bad idea will not produce a good one. Some ideas are fundamentally unacceptable and should be removed and replaced with better ones.

ArcherofAiur
06-20-2009, 10:45 PM
Unless it can be made to contend with other abilities, thus creating real gameplay, it is a fundamentally mindless mechanic. The radius of the ability or how long it takes to cast are not going to help.


I agree that the other mechanics should be made more useful to increase tension with proton charge. Also define mindless. If you make the radius small then you need to pay allot of attention to how you place it to get the most probes. Thats very mind intense process in the same way that psi storm is.


Nicol just to get a sence of what your saying. How do you feel about mechanics that increase resource gathering in general? Like if we seperate mechanics into task and reward. Its pretty clear you dont like the task part but how do you feel about resource rewards.

Nicol Bolas
06-20-2009, 11:59 PM
How do you feel about mechanics that increase resource gathering in general? Like if we seperate mechanics into task and reward. Its pretty clear you dont like the task part but how do you feel about resource rewards.

The reward is irrelevant. If the task is mindless, it is a priori bad. Just like having to manually put workers on minerals after they're constructed.


If you make the radius small then you need to pay allot of attention to how you place it to get the most probes. Thats very mind intense process in the same way that psi storm is.

It's still mindless. It's a simple sorting task; find the area that has the most Probes and fire away. Again, I can code up an algorithm to do that with ease.

Rake
06-21-2009, 02:47 AM
For the obelisk to at least reach the level of the orbital command it must force you to choose one of at least two options, either of which would set the game on a different path. Currently the obelisk doesn’t do this for two reasons:
1) The abilities are not in tension with each other because you can have enough obelisks near your minerals to autocast when the timer runs out and others elsewhere to cast cloak or whatever. No decision is necessary.
2) Even if the spells were in tension, the spells other than proton charge are not valuable enough to forgo the extra minerals from proton charge except in rare circumstances.

I posted a possible solution to 1 in another thread; namely that all obelisks share a common mana pool that increases with each new obelisk. Suggestions from others have included making the obelisk very expensive, and adding its abilities to the Nexus.

I suggest that to solve 2 it might be a good idea to link the dark obelisk energy to warp in, so that the protoss player must decide between extra minerals or a mobility advantage. It is the only thing I can think of that hasn’t already been taken and would be powerful enough to forgo minerals for.

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 05:34 AM
"But Proton Charge doesn't suck. You could build enough Obelisks to cast Proton Charge forever. But Just having Obelisks casting Proton Charge cannot win you a game. You need diversity, you need a unit who can damage buildings."

See you did the exact thing i said you would do. You said no its different and then discribed something completly different about than what we were talking about (for reference we were talking about whether x every second spells were bad). Please replace proton charge with psi storm in your post before posting to see if you are making this same mistake again.

OMFG.

Ok, lets try this again using simple words.

Proton Charge is a macro mechanic. It lets you get more money faster every time you cast it. Psi storm is a unit ability. It lets you kill your opponents units better. Both can help you increase your economic advantage. The difference is in their versatility. All money gathered by Probes who are using Proton Charge can be used to build anything in your army. Psi Storm can only be used to kill enemy units, which can escape it or get repaired. Proton Charge is a direct, unavoidable, exponentially increasing factor on your income. To be effective, it MUST be cast every x seconds or your economy will fall behind. Psi Storm is a limited, avoidable spell. To be effective it can be cast on enemy units, but if you never use it and that energy goes toward the other HT abilities, you won't necessarily lose the economic fight. If you never use Proton Charge, you most certainly will, because any good opponent will be using their races macro mechanic.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 08:09 AM
Psi Storm is a limited, avoidable spell. To be effective it can be cast on enemy units, but if you never use it and that energy goes toward the other HT abilities, you won't necessarily lose the economic fight.

Can you show me a progame where the the protoss doesnt use Psi Storm almost as soon as he has energy?

(also calm down. No one is attacking you.)

Aldrius
06-21-2009, 10:22 AM
I mean cast on enemy units. Just like when you say cast proton charge its implied that your casting on your probes.

Cast on enemy units where? When? These things matter.

With Proton Charge they don't. The where is easy as hell. The when is whenever they don't have Proton Charge active already.


If you have a high templar one of the reasons you dont want to cast psi storm is that it costs allot? Id say if you invest that much into teching to high templar you darn well better use them.

One of the reasons you don't just run off and try to cast it on the enemy WITHOUT thinking, is that you don't want to put that High Templar at risk, you want to get the most out of it.

It's not that you don't want to cast the spell, it's that you need to be careful when casting the spell. You don't have to be careful at all when casting Proton Charge. There's 0 risk, tons of reward. It's imbalanced.

Also, Psi Storm's targets MOVE A LOT and will move more when the ability, that is not cast in a single second is cast. Proton Charge's targets don't. They stay in the same small area moving back and forth. Like shooting fish in a barrel. And making the AoE smaller won't help at all.

Hitting targets with Psi Storm is just A LOT more difficult.


The funny thing about that is that untill recently the HT secondary ability was shield recharge.

Yes, which was dumb.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 10:38 AM
Cast on enemy units where? When? These things matter.

With Proton Charge they don't. The where is easy as hell. The when is whenever they don't have Proton Charge active already.

One of the reasons you don't just run off and try to cast it on the enemy WITHOUT thinking, is that you don't want to put that High Templar at risk, you want to get the most out of it.

It's not that you don't want to cast the spell, it's that you need to be careful when casting the spell. You don't have to be careful at all when casting Proton Charge. There's 0 risk, tons of reward. It's imbalanced.

Also, Psi Storm's targets MOVE A LOT and will move more when the ability, that is not cast in a single second is cast. Proton Charge's targets don't. They stay in the same small area moving back and forth. Like shooting fish in a barrel. And making the AoE smaller won't help at all.

Hitting targets with Psi Storm is just A LOT more difficult.


Ya that makes sense. Ok so like I said one thing to try would be to make the radius smaller but it seems like there is a bigger problem that is getting in the way.

Lets break the ability into task and reward


Task: Target area in base with ability.

Reward: Increased resource gathering rate.


Now it seems like most of the problem lies in the task. Based on the MULE/Proton charge poll the MULE recieves significantly better reception than Proton Charge. The reason most often cited is its task involves a drop pod which presumbably is more "mindful" than an AOE spell. So maybe what we need to focus on is devicing a better task for Protoss players to accomplish to recieve macro benefits.


What do you guys think?


BTW I love the fact that there are so much talk about macro on these forums. I really think SCLegacy is providing the leading voice in shaping how SC2 does macro.

SpiderBrigade
06-21-2009, 10:56 AM
Archer, normally I respect your opinion a lot but this whole "proton charge = psi storm" thing is ridiculous.

The primary difference is that for Proton Charge, the target and location never changes. You are always casting it over your minerals, every time. Psi Storm is a combat spell which means you should only cast it when the enemy is present, and the location will vary greatly.

Second, there is no way that Proton Charge can be "mis-cast" or cast "badly." You put it over your probes, they get boosted. On the other hand, it's very easy to waste a Psi Storm, or hit your own units, or target the wrong group of enemies. In other words, choice is important.

Now, you say a lot of things like "you always want to cast Psi Storm as soon as you have enough energy" but you are really deluded if you think that is true. If your templar has enough energy but there are no enemy units nearby, you would not want to cast the spell. Or, you would save the energy until you can drop the templar on his mineral line. Or you would wait for a few seconds to get the optimal number of his troops under your storm. On the other hand with Proton Charge, there is no situation that would make you want to wait to cast it.

Aldrius
06-21-2009, 10:57 AM
Now it seems like most of the problem lies in the task. Based on the MULE/Proton charge poll the MULE recieves significantly better reception than Proton Charge. The reason most often cited is its task involves a drop pod which presumbably is more "mindful" than an AOE spell. So maybe what we need to focus on is devicing a better task for Protoss players to accomplish to recieve macro benefits.

Nah, the problem is that Proton Charge has got no real competition. And there's only way to gain an economic boost.

With the Orbital Command, you have Supply Drop, which increases your minerals by making it so that you DON'T have to spend minerals on more supply depots. Which is actually an easier ability to do than MULEs. It also provides a nice, PERMANENT benefit, but probably doesn't increase your mineral coffers as much as the MULE does.

The Dark Pylon, though? Well it used to increase your mineral coffers if you didn't bother to GET the Dark Pylon. 50 minerals extra per dark pylon. (Compared to the 25 minerals you get back per cast of supply drop, not very impressive considering the frequency of each cast of supply drop.) Now they've actually removed the psi and power provided by the Dark Pylon, so it's not even competing with the Pylon anymore. There's LESS competition now. Which is a bad move for a Macro mechanic.

Okay, I've gone over this before, but to me... what they should do...

Is...

A) Increase it's cost. Make it 200 or even 250. 100 minerals per obelisk you don't build seems good to me, though.
B) Take away it's psi-providing power, but keep the fact that it provides power.
C) Give it the cloaking ability again, and allow it to work on buildings.
D) Make it so Proton Charge can be kept up permanently rather easily (i.e. higher energy cost, longer duration), but only with a significant investment. (i.e. More Obelisks)

And then I'm not sure about energy/shield recharge. Energy recharge would be better IMO, but I can see the need for a shield recharge ability.

SpiderBrigade
06-21-2009, 10:59 AM
Now it seems like most of the problem lies in the task. Based on the MULE/Proton charge poll the MULE recieves significantly better reception than Proton Charge. The reason most often cited is its task involves a drop pod which presumbably is more "mindful" than an AOE spell. So maybe what we need to focus on is devicing a better task for Protoss players to accomplish to recieve macro benefits.What are you talking about? People don't like MULE better because of the drop pod. It's better (marginally) because you actually have a valid competitor for the energy you spend. It's that element of choice that makes it non-busy-work (although, again, some still think it is). If you took away scan and supply drop, the MULE would be just as bad as Proton Charge even though it has a drop pod, since you would just automatically want to cast it every X seconds.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 10:59 AM
Archer, normally I respect your opinion a lot but this whole "proton charge = psi storm" thing is ridiculous.

The primary difference is that for Proton Charge, the target and location never changes. You are always casting it over your minerals, every time. Psi Storm is a combat spell which means you should only cast it when the enemy is present, and the location will vary greatly.

Second, there is no way that Proton Charge can be "mis-cast" or cast "badly." You put it over your probes, they get boosted. On the other hand, it's very easy to waste a Psi Storm, or hit your own units, or target the wrong group of enemies. In other words, choice is important.

Now, you say a lot of things like "you always want to cast Psi Storm as soon as you have enough energy" but you are really deluded if you think that is true. If your templar has enough energy but there are no enemy units nearby, you would not want to cast the spell. Or, you would save the energy until you can drop the templar on his mineral line. Or you would wait for a few seconds to get the optimal number of his troops under your storm. On the other hand with Proton Charge, there is no situation that would make you want to wait to cast it.



Ya im dropping it. Ill admit their are differences in the thought process of how its cast.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 11:01 AM
What are you talking about? People don't like MULE better because of the drop pod. It's better (marginally) because you actually have a valid competitor for the energy you spend. It's that element of choice that makes it non-busy-work (although, again, some still think it is). If you took away scan and supply drop, the MULE would be just as bad as Proton Charge even though it has a drop pod, since you would just automatically want to cast it every X seconds.

Several people have commented that they like the drop pod aspect of MULEs in the MULE/Proton Charge thread. Im not saying that the other choices arnt important. I think they are.

unentschieden
06-21-2009, 12:03 PM
Supply drop is the ONLY ability that actually adds Minerals (maybe to balance "dropped" minerals by selfdestructing MULEs). Proton charge and MULEs "just" increase income. MULEs as a income spike while PC more even.

Orbital commands are fine since they are naturally limited as CC upgrade, it wonīt be effective to mass OCs.
Obelisks though are a balance challenge since, if they are cost effective on their own youīd simply build them at each expansion.
Obelisks need to reearn the 150 Minerals they put you behind, ideally theyīd have the "value" of 2~3 Peons - a bit less since Obelisks also have alternative abilities and as a building are less vulnerable than Probes.

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 12:49 PM
Can you show me a progame where the the protoss doesnt use Psi Storm almost as soon as he has energy?

(also calm down. No one is attacking you.)

No, I can't. Because the HT never had an ability that really competed with Psi Storm. Again, your missing the point. You can choose NOT to build HT, and not to use Storm, and still have a reasonable chance to win the game because you're still working with x resources. Proton Charge exponentially increases the total resources you have to work with, and your chances of winning decrease exponentially if you do not use the mechanic. So the mechanic is no longer a choice, it is required to win. That's just one of many problems with it.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 12:51 PM
So the mechanic is no longer a choice, it is required to win. That's just one of many problems with it.


So are we in agreement that the other obelisk abilities should be made more useful (right word?) to compete with proton charge?

Trouble
06-21-2009, 12:56 PM
What if a negative attribute was added to the Proton Charge? Say, when activated all units and buildings within range lose their shields for the entire duration. Once the effect is complete then the shields of the affected untis and buildings return to full. While in effect, their shields can not be recharged by any means.

Wouldn't this make it a more thought out process? Especially at expansions? What do you think?

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 01:00 PM
So are we in agreement that the other abilities should be made more useful (right word?) to compete with proton charge?

Unfortunately that wouldn't really work. Same with the MULE.

Remember: PC is a mass effect mechanic focused solely on your resources. PC has no downside. Its imbalanced by its very nature. The reason the Carrier's mass effect isn't as imbalanced is because its extremely expensive and harder to access. But PC is cheap. To create another ability to actually compete with the huge advantage and accessibility of PC, you'd have to create another imbalanced ability. Its a horrible cycle. What PC needs IS to be more like Psi Storm - that is to say, it needs to have times you don't want to use it, just like everything else in the game. It needs to be nerfed, not be given a competitor of equal imbalance.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 01:04 PM
What if a negative attribute was added to the Proton Charge? Say, when activated all units and buildings within range lose their shields for the entire duration. Once the effect is complete then the shields of the affected untis and buildings return to full. While in effect, their shields can not be recharged by any means.

Wouldn't this make it a more thought out process? Especially at expansions? What do you think?

Its been brought up before (several times). Blizzard rarely has spells that have significant draw backs (Mind control and stim pack are two). Its also doesnt really affect how often players choose to cast it. If I am a macro focused player I am still going to want the extra minerals even if my probes dont have shields. As Dustin said in an interview you dont really play with the expectation that you will be attacked. You play with the expectation that your going to be kicking face in the opponents base.

Another issue with attaching a drawback to the protoss mining mechanic is that it could potentially give Terran and Zerg better macro mechanics then Protoss. This would allow them to outmass. But of course that all comes down to balance which is very hard to theory craft.


Unfortunately that wouldn't really work. Same with the MULE.

Remember: PC is a mass effect mechanic focused solely on your resources. PC has no downside. .

Isnt spawn larva also a mass effect spell. Isnt building workers a mass effect spell? Isnt macro in general based on the idea of exponential growth?

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 01:18 PM
Isnt spawn larva also a mass effect spell. Isnt building workers a mass effect spell? Isnt macro in general based on the idea of exponential growth?

No. When you build a worker, you will get a calculable return on the life of that worker if it mines the entire game. The equation for your income is "workers x resources x trips." PC screws up the calculations by adding another variable. If you cast PC on 6 Probes, you get 6 more minerals. If you cast it on 12, you get 12. The more Probes you build, the more resources you get back using the ability, multiplied, not added like it needs to be to be balanced. It increases exponentially through multiplication the more Probes you add. You can pay back the cost of every Obelisk though one cast of the spell.

When you cast Spawn Larva, you get 4 Larva. No more, no less. You can get more larva by building more Hatcheries and Queens, but you'll also be using resources to build those, and not every larva you spawn with the ability will become a drone to harvest. So the ability takes a much longer time to pay for itself, and possibly never will.

Macro is exponential growth, yes. But to be balanced it needs to increase at the same rate for every race. A player can increase their income rate, and take an economic advantage over his opponent. But the opponent also has that same chance to do so because of the balance. PC removes that balance.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 01:25 PM
No. When you build a worker, you will get a calculable return on the life of that worker if it mines the entire game. The equation for your income is "workers x resources x trips." PC screws up the calculations by adding another variable. I dont see why adding another variable screws up the calculation. To be honest I highly doubt Blizzard balances their game through mathematical calculations.



Macro is exponential growth, yes. But to be balanced it needs to increase at the same rate for every race. A player can increase their income rate, and take an economic advantage over his opponent. But the opponent also has that same chance to do so because of the balance. PC removes that balance.
You are not taking into account things like Zerg fast expanding, Terran salvaging, Healing hitpoints, free supply, etc... I see how your trying to reduce it to some kinda net sum game but the system is way to complex for that. Its also hard to believe you can say PC is unbalanced since you have never played the game with it.


But actually all that is irrelivant. You were saying Proton Charge is bad because its exponential (postive feedback is prolly a better term) when all of macro is exponential. Now your talking about balance which is kinda completly a different subject.

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 01:39 PM
I dont see why adding another variable screws up the calculation. To be honest I highly doubt Blizzard balances their game through mathematical calculations.

That variable is only available to Protoss, not Zerg or Terran. And there HAS to be math involved to balance.


You are not taking into account things like Zerg fast expanding, Terran salvaging, Healing hitpoints, free supply, etc... I see how your trying to reduce it to some kinda net sum game but the system is way to complex for that. Its also hard to believe you can say PC is unbalanced since you have never played the game with it.

I don't have to play it to see its unbalanced. The math tells me that. Giving one race an exponential variable while the others don't get it is CLEARLY wrong.


But actually all that is irrelivant. You were saying Proton Charge is bad because its exponential (postive feedback is prolly a better term) when all of macro is exponential. Now your talking about balance which is kinda completly a different subject.

They are the same subject. This whole time Ive been calling PC imbalanced. Macro is exponential. But all races in SC1 had the same access to that curve. That was balanced. Blizzard is giving the Protoss ANOTHER exponential curve, that the other races don't get. SC economy = x^2. Protoss economy = x^2^2. This is BAD.

SaharaDrac
06-21-2009, 02:24 PM
Proton Charge a "sound" RTS game mechanic? That's disgusting.

An APM sink is anything which exists solely to create macro though busywork. It requires no strategy, merely a memorization of timing. The nature of Proton Charge makes it required to do every x seconds or else your economy will fall behind. The mechanic isn't there as a pacer, like making buildings. Its not there for strategy, like "do I build a cybernetics core or another 2 zealots?" Its there to appease the pro gamers who bitch that SC2 lacked enough macro. Not because its a "sound" mechanic.

I have also suggested multiple non-busywork, non-APM sink macro mechanics over the 2 years I've been on this site.


Wrong again. Obelisks are a CHOICE. You pay minerals to have them. They aren't required. You have no clue if you fall behind without them. How can you assume such a thing? They are meant to be a bonus for doing basework. It IS there for strategy.

I also don't give a crap about your 2 years of posts, if you're going to act like such a stuck up know-it-all, then make some suggestions HERE, in this thread.

unentschieden
06-21-2009, 02:44 PM
There is a very easy way to balance out this "unfairness"- make Protoss units and Techs more expensive.
That is if the cost of the obelisk itself doesnīt balance it out.

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 02:50 PM
Wrong again. Obelisks are a CHOICE. You pay minerals to have them. They aren't required. You have no clue if you fall behind without them. How can you assume such a thing? They are meant to be a bonus for doing basework. It IS there for strategy.

I also don't give a crap about your 2 years of posts, if you're going to act like such a stuck up know-it-all, then make some suggestions HERE, in this thread.

Obelisks cost 150 minerals. Proton Charge costs 50 energy, and last 40 seconds. That 50 energy gives all Probes in its AoE cast an extra 1 mineral per trip. Lets say you have 25 probes (pretty standard, yes?). Each Probe mines 5 minerals every 8 seconds. That's 25 extra minerals per full Probe rotation. 40/8 = 5. 5x25 = 125. So in one cast of Proton Charge, the mechanic nearly paid for itself. Another cast, and you'll have collected 100 minerals more than you normally would have. And you can cast it as long as the game lasts and there are minerals. That's a huge gain in resource accumulation, especially if you cast it constantly on multiple expansions. Every professional player will use the mechanic, and those who don't will drastically fall behind in economy. The only way the mechanic won't have an exponential effect on economies is if you alter its stats to provide no profit, which defeats its purpose. The problem is the exponential effect.

And I've lost track of how many mechanics I've posted, but notable ones include mineral/gas conversion and silos.

PsiWarp
06-21-2009, 02:57 PM
Proton Charge lasts 30 seconds :)

They really should limit Probes affected per cast, like 5 Probes caught inside 1 Proton Charge or something, that another cast would charge another 5 Probes and does not renew the previous Probes' charge duration.


-Psi

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 02:59 PM
Proton Charge lasts 30 seconds :)

They really should limit Probes affected per cast, like 5 Probes caught inside 1 Proton Charge or something, that another cast would charge another 5 Probes and does not renew the previous Probes' charge duration.


-Psi

Last I heard it was 40, but my position still stands. Two casts, and you break even. Everything else is pure exponential growth that the other races do not have access to.

SlickR
06-21-2009, 03:56 PM
No, you're choosing between increased income which can be used to build anything including defensive units, and a purely defensive unit. There is no choice, no professional player will build PF's.
Thats still 2 choices, no matter what pros choose.

Is it balanced? Probably no, but I expect it to get balanced in beta.

SaharaDrac
06-21-2009, 04:01 PM
Obelisks cost 150 minerals. Proton Charge costs 50 energy, and last 40 seconds. That 50 energy gives all Probes in its AoE cast an extra 1 mineral per trip. Lets say you have 25 probes (pretty standard, yes?). Each Probe mines 5 minerals every 8 seconds. That's 25 extra minerals per full Probe rotation. 40/8 = 5. 5x25 = 125. So in one cast of Proton Charge, the mechanic nearly paid for itself. Another cast, and you'll have collected 100 minerals more than you normally would have. And you can cast it as long as the game lasts and there are minerals. That's a huge gain in resource accumulation, especially if you cast it constantly on multiple expansions. Every professional player will use the mechanic, and those who don't will drastically fall behind in economy. The only way the mechanic won't have an exponential effect on economies is if you alter its stats to provide no profit, which defeats its purpose. The problem is the exponential effect.

And I've lost track of how many mechanics I've posted, but notable ones include mineral/gas conversion and silos.


You're arguing numbers, which can be changed (again, I repeat, the game isn't even in BETA), and calling it a flawed mechanic as a whole. It doesn't make sense.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 04:02 PM
Obelisks cost 150 minerals. Proton Charge costs 50 energy, and last 40 seconds. That 50 energy gives all Probes in its AoE cast an extra 1 mineral per trip. Lets say you have 25 probes (pretty standard, yes?). Each Probe mines 5 minerals every 8 seconds. That's 25 extra minerals per full Probe rotation. 40/8 = 5. 5x25 = 125. So in one cast of Proton Charge, the mechanic nearly paid for itself. Another cast, and you'll have collected 100 minerals more than you normally would have. And you can cast it as long as the game lasts and there are minerals. That's a huge gain in resource accumulation, especially if you cast it constantly on multiple expansions.


Ok so hes in his base macroing and getting resources. You know what you can do with all that extra time and attention you have since you dont want to cast proton charge? First you can cast psi storms and temporal rifts to destroy his army (his attention is on his own base so he wont notice). Then you can infiltrate his base with some nullifiers, force field off the exits and destroy all his probes. Now he has no probes to cast Proton Charge on and his mineral intake is 0. GG

Or you can use warp-in and phase prisms. Or you combo phoenixs and void rays. Or you can micro your Stalkers etc....

unentschieden
06-21-2009, 04:22 PM
Obelisks cost 150 minerals. Proton Charge costs 50 energy, and last 40 seconds. That 50 energy gives all Probes in its AoE cast an extra 1 mineral per trip. Lets say you have 25 probes (pretty standard, yes?). Each Probe mines 5 minerals every 8 seconds. That's 25 extra minerals per full Probe rotation. 40/8 = 5. 5x25 = 125. So in one cast of Proton Charge, the mechanic nearly paid for itself. Another cast, and you'll have collected 100 minerals more than you normally would have. And you can cast it as long as the game lasts and there are minerals. That's a huge gain in resource accumulation, especially if you cast it constantly on multiple expansions. Every professional player will use the mechanic, and those who don't will drastically fall behind in economy. The only way the mechanic won't have an exponential effect on economies is if you alter its stats to provide no profit, which defeats its purpose. The problem is the exponential effect.

And I've lost track of how many mechanics I've posted, but notable ones include mineral/gas conversion and silos.

Partly itīs numbers, partly itīs concept. You said it yourself each race has basically the same economic structure.
Changing that isnīt really a issue. Even in SC:BW a Mineral has a different value to a Terran than a Zerg Player. Arguably 200Supply Terran > 200 Control Zerg.

Under Competitive Play Balance isnīt a matter of Mathematics. Who could calculate that flawed pathing would keep Reavers from being OP?

If the Protoss have 20% higher income but arenīt any stronger than Terrans or Zerg then the effect is basically that they run 20% faster out of resources and have to pay more attention to Expanding (Like the Zerg in SC:BW are considered even if they have one base more than the enemy)

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 04:26 PM
You're arguing numbers, which can be changed (again, I repeat, the game isn't even in BETA), and calling it a flawed mechanic as a whole. It doesn't make sense.

The numbers aren't important, they just illustrate the point. Whats important is that regardless of the numbers, its still an exponential mechanic. That is imbalanced at its core.


Ok so hes in his base macroing and getting resources. You know what you can do with all that extra time and attention you have since you dont want to cast proton charge? First you can cast psi storms and temporal rifts to destroy his army (his attention is on his own base so he wont notice). Then you can infiltrate his base with some nullifiers, force field off the exits and destroy all his probes. Now he has no probes to cast Proton Charge on and his mineral intake is 0. GG

Or you can use warp-in and phase prisms. Or you combo phoenixs and void rays. Or you can micro your Stalkers etc....

Do you even read what you type? Casting OC is 2-3 clicks every (according to Psi Warp) every 30 seconds. For a pro with an APM of 200, thats nothing. The person using PC will ALSO be "casting psi storms and temporal rifts to destroy your army (his attention is on his own base so he wont notice). Then you can infiltrate his base with some nullifiers, force field off the exits and destroy all his probes. Now he has no probes to cast Proton Charge on and his mineral intake is 0. GG

Or you can use warp-in and phase prisms. Or you combo phoenixs and void rays. Or you can micro your Stalkers etc...."

Its not like you sit there watching the ability and do nothing else.


Partly itīs numbers, partly itīs concept. You said it yourself each race has basically the same economic structure.
Changing that isnīt really a issue. Even in SC:BW a Mineral has a different value to a Terran than a Zerg Player. Arguably 200Supply Terran > 200 Control Zerg.

Under Competitive Play Balance isnīt a matter of Mathematics. Who could calculate that flawed pathing would keep Reavers from being OP?

If the Protoss have 20% higher income but arenīt any stronger than Terrans or Zerg then the effect is basically that they run 20% faster out of resources and have to pay more attention to Expanding (Like the Zerg in SC:BW are considered even if they have one base more than the enemy)

Again: SC1 was balanced because all the races had the same methods to obtain income. PC disrupts that balance by giving Protoss an exponential, multiplying macro mechanic, while MULES and Spawn Larva are just additive.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 04:30 PM
Do you even read what you type? Casting OC is 2-3 clicks every (according to Psi Warp) every 30 seconds. For a pro with an APM of 200, thats nothing. The person using PC will ALSO be "casting psi storms and temporal rifts to destroy your army

If he can macro better than you AND micro better than you than he is just a better player. The game has to be balanced to two players of equal skill level. Not balanced between two of unequal skill.

mr. peasant
06-21-2009, 04:37 PM
If he can macro better than you AND micro better than you than he is just a better player. The game has to be balanced to two players of equal skill level. Not balanced between two of unequal skill.

I think what DSquid is saying is that it doesn't take up that much attention to periodically cast Proton Charge at constant intervals. Therefore, what little attention is required to doing this is trivial in comparison to the sum of tasks a player is already undertaking at any one time. Therefore, there isn't enough 'inattention' to be taken advantage of to a significant degree.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 04:53 PM
I think what DSquid is saying is that it doesn't take up that much attention to periodically cast Proton Charge at constant intervals. Therefore, what little attention is required to doing this is trivial in comparison to the sum of tasks a player is already undertaking at any one time. Therefore, there isn't enough 'inattention' to be taken advantage of to a significant degree.

Its like macroing SC:BW. It is real easy at first to keep making workers. Real easy. Then you have to micro your dragoons. And prevent a drop at your expo. And tech to DTs. And all the other distractions that find their way into the fast paced, exciting gameplay that is Starcraft. It just piles on and on untill you go back to your base and you have 5 probes just sitting around.


Or you can focus on macro. Cut probes at the right time. Expand. You can do it but your army is going to fare significantly worse in the field then if you were tending to them.

Or you can do a hybrid, doing both but neither perfect.

Nicol Bolas
06-21-2009, 04:58 PM
Wrong again. Obelisks are a CHOICE. You pay minerals to have them. They aren't required. You have no clue if you fall behind without them. How can you assume such a thing? They are meant to be a bonus for doing basework. It IS there for strategy.

No, not really.

Mathematically, given the time it takes for PC to wear off, the energy that PC takes to cast, the number of probes that one shot of PC can affect, and the time spent on PC, one can determine the number of Obelisks required to indefinitely keep PC going over the probes at one expansion.

Factor in the cost of Obelisks, and one can determine, for any configuration of these numbers, the optimal number of Obelisks to have at an expansion. This is a simple equation; I would expect anyone who's taken algebra to perform such a calculation.

Workers mine at the same rate. For X workers working Y mineral patches, any size gets Z minerals per minute. The optimal arrangement of Obelisks, along with constant use of PC, will give you some percentage increase over this base mining rate.

This is a mathematical determination. Therefore, Blizzard should be able to determine this. Which means that the other mechanics must be balanced against this number.

The problem is that this number is based on X workers. So every time X increases, the Protoss get more minerals. While there is a maximum on X (to the point of full mineral saturation), that's still a lot of workers. So the number that the other mechanics need to be balanced against is PC used at optimal speed on the maximum possible number of workers on Y patches.

In short, the more workers you have, the better PC gets. Mules don't get better with the number of workers, and neither does Spawn Larva.

This is the problem DSquid is talking about. It is guaranteed to be unbalanced on one scale or another. Either the other two mechanics have to be competitive with optimal PC use (which means that sub-optimal PC use means getting beaten by even half-assed Mule use), or the other two are not competitive and optimal PC use allows the Protoss to out-resource everyone.


Thats still 2 choices, no matter what pros choose.

Having the option to fail does not constitute a choice.


You know what you can do with all that extra time and attention you have since you dont want to cast proton charge? First you can cast psi storms and temporal rifts to destroy his army (his attention is on his own base so he wont notice). Then you can infiltrate his base with some nullifiers, force field off the exits and destroy all his probes. Now he has no probes to cast Proton Charge on and his mineral intake is 0. GG

This is the same argument used to explain why auto-mine shouldn't be allowed. You're forced to go back to your base to macro rather than pay attention to your army. This is not enough of a choice. If you want people to have to go back to their base, it shouldn't be to hit a button. It should be to make a meaningful choice about what to do with their resource management.

Yes, if you layer enough mindless busywork all on top of each other, then you can get a functioning game. This does not make it good; it merely makes it functional. Mindful mechanics are always preferred over mindless ones.


Its like macroing SC:BW.

Exactly; that's why it's a bad mechanic. SC1 macro is based on busywork that you must do or your opponent roles over you economically. It isn't based on mindful constructs, things you can choose when or how to do for greatest effect. Every second you have an SCV sitting outside a command center after production is lost income that you can never regain.

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 05:09 PM
I can't believe I'm saying this, so don't get smug. But... thank you Nicol Bolas.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 05:10 PM
Exactly; that's why it's a bad mechanic. SC1 macro is based on busywork that you must do or your opponent roles over you economically.

I was talking about the balance between micro and macro. Micro and macro was very balanced in SC:BW. Your bending the topic to be from more of a meaningful action or maybe even fun stance. If you want to talk about that we can but what I said applied to the balance. I did not claim that worker rallying was particularly meaningful so you dont need to make a post argueing against it.

Rake
06-21-2009, 06:27 PM
I think Dsquid has hit on a very interesting problem (now that I understand it). Someone else (I can’t find who first suggested it) pointed out that you could limit the maximum number of probes hit with each cast. This would make it additive as you would only ever get x number of extra minerals per cast. It might also make the clicking more difficult as, when there are lots of probes, some would be charged and some wouldn’t so you would have to decide if you click on that area again or click in a different area.

For example, if there are 9 probes in area 1 and you can only charge 5 per cast, then if you click there twice you have wasted 1 probe charge.

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 06:36 PM
I think Dsquid has hit on a very interesting problem (now that I understand it). Someone else (I can’t find who first suggested it) pointed out that you could limit the maximum number of probes hit with each cast. This would make it additive as you would only ever get x number of extra minerals per cast. It might also make the clicking more difficult as, when there are lots of probes, some would be charged and some wouldn’t so you would have to decide if you click on that area again or click in a different area.

For example, if there are 9 probes in area 1 and you can only charge 5 per cast, then if you click there twice you have wasted 1 probe charge.

Limiting the mechanic to x probes would solve that one issue. However, PC suffers from other problems as well. In total, there are 3 stages, or issues, with the mechanic:

- exponential growth or "mass effect syndrome"
- the mechanic being compulsory to victory
- the mechanic being tedious

vIsitor
06-21-2009, 06:36 PM
Now that we've established the problem, can we stop whining about its brokenness and work out a means of fixing said problem. And, no, simply removing said mechanic is not a viable solution; it needs alteration or replacement, not absence.

n00bonicPlague
06-21-2009, 07:00 PM
We don't even need to alter it that much. We just need some proper mechanics to balance against it. Shield and Energy Regens just aren't cutting it. If we can give it at least one other ability that truly saves time and resources, PC can stay.

Rake
06-21-2009, 07:02 PM
I don't understand what you mean by "mass effect syndrome", I thought that was the additive/multiplicative thing.



- the mechanic being compulsory to victory


Am I right in thinking that what you mean by this is that if you ever choose something else competing with this spell (other spells or other strategies) then you would autolose the game? Could this be fixed by making the Obelisk more expensive so that if you overcommit on them then you would be at a significant military disadvantage?

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 07:06 PM
We don't even need to alter it that much. We just need some proper mechanics to balance against it. Shield and Energy Regens just aren't cutting it. If we can give it at least one other ability that truly saves time and resources, PC can stay.



In the other macro thread. I proposed allowing Protoss to teleport units to the obelisk something like

Recall

Cost: 50 Energy

Effect: Teleports one Protoss unit back to the Obelisk



another option is giving protoss healing but I feel like weve done enough argueing for today ;)

DemolitionSquid
06-21-2009, 07:36 PM
I don't understand what you mean by "mass effect syndrome", I thought that was the additive/multiplicative thing.

Mass effect syndrome is when something becomes exponentially more useful, not additively. Take the Carrier, as its the best example. A single Carrier in SCBW is powerful, but its seldom seen, because its very easily countered by Goliath or Scourge. A single Carrier is in fact, quite useless. Even two Carriers poses no real problem. But as you add more Carriers, you're not adding +1. You're adding +8, because of the Interceptors. Carriers are pretty shitty until you hit a certain point, at which point they become impossible to defeat. The effect is not gradual, like building an army of Marines, +1+1+1. The effect increases very rapidly in a very short amount of time. That's just the nature of the Carrier being 9 units and not 1. That is mass effect syndrome - a multiplying growth in power over an unproportional amount of time. Its very hard to balance.


Am I right in thinking that what you mean by this is that if you ever choose something else competing with this spell (other spells or other strategies) then you would auto-lose the game? Could this be fixed by making the Obelisk more expensive so that if you overcommit on them then you would be at a significant military disadvantage?

Think of it like this. Two Protoss players, one uses PC, the other does not. Both build 30 Probes, but the guy using PC uses it at 15, 20, 25, and thirty Probes built.

At first, the benefit from using PC is slim, he spent 150 minerals getting the Obelisk, so he'll be behind for a little bit. But as more and more Probes get built, and he casts PC more times, his income rate increases exponentially. Eventually that 150 loss at the start has turned into a huge gain, that just gets bigger and bigger the more Probes he adds. An income boost like that for what is really a minor setback at the start can inflate his economy to a point his opponent could never reach. And the person with the better economy naturally has it better off - getting more units faster. Factor in equal micro, and the person with the bigger army will win more likely than not.

Rake
06-21-2009, 08:13 PM
Mass effect syndrome is when something becomes exponentially more useful, not additively. Take the Carrier, as its the best example. A single Carrier in SCBW is powerful, but its seldom seen, because its very easily countered by Goliath or Scourge. A single Carrier is in fact, quite useless. Even two Carriers poses no real problem. But as you add more Carriers, you're not adding +1. You're adding +8, because of the Interceptors. Carriers are pretty shitty until you hit a certain point, at which point they become impossible to defeat. The effect is not gradual, like building an army of Marines, +1+1+1. The effect increases very rapidly in a very short amount of time. That's just the nature of the Carrier being 9 units and not 1. That is mass effect syndrome - a multiplying growth in power over an unproportional amount of time. Its very hard to balance.

I agree that mass effect syndrome is a problem, especially with the carrier. I remember I liked a suggestion that you made once (I think) that the carrier have an aura so that one would be useful by itself.

I thought that the mass effect syndrome would be solved by limiting the probes affected per cast (and thereby the mineral gained per cast). At least it would be just like mules since mules give you a pre-determined maximum number of minerals per cast.



Think of it like this. Two Protoss players, one uses PC, the other does not. Both build 30 Probes, but the guy using PC uses it at 15, 20, 25, and thirty Probes built.

At first, the benefit from using PC is slim, he spent 150 minerals getting the Obelisk, so he'll be behind for a little bit. But as more and more Probes get built, and he casts PC more times, his income rate increases exponentially. Eventually that 150 loss at the start has turned into a huge gain, that just gets bigger and bigger the more Probes he adds. An income boost like that for what is really a minor setback at the start can inflate his economy to a point his opponent could never reach. And the person with the better economy naturally has it better off - getting more units faster. Factor in equal micro, and the person with the bigger army will win more likely than not.

What if the obelisk cost 300 (subject to balance) minerals? Then someone who didn’t get the obelisk could get 3 extra zealots (or something) and try to finish off their opponent. If this fails completely then they would loose. If it did some damage they could get their dark pylon as well and it would reset the game. Of course, if they succeeded then they would win. It would be like in protoss v. protoss in SC1 with the trade off of getting an expansion or producing extra troops.

It could be a similar situation if both have the Obelisk and one person uses proton charge and the other person uses a competing ability to kill the others probes. The difficulty in this scenario is in creating ability with sufficient power to compete with the extra minerals gained from proton charge. Not an easy task.

Nicol Bolas
06-21-2009, 10:03 PM
Micro and macro was very balanced in SC:BW.

No, it was not. I can't count how many times I've seen SC1 players lose a battle that a little more micro could have won them because they had to go back to the base and macro something. SC1 was more about having functioning macro and seeing what micro you could do inbetween. There was never a question of whether macroing is the correct thing to be doing right now; the only question is whether there is a macro task that needs doing right now.


In the other macro thread. I proposed allowing Protoss to teleport units to the obelisk something like

It doesn't contend for energy because it is the Obelisk in question that gets recalled to. You can play as many Obelisks as you wish, since they are not limited by supply (like Queens) or by high cost (like OCCs). Further, recalling into your base is useless outside of your base being under severe attack. So obviously, you're only going to use the recall ability on an offensive Obelisk.

The Obelisk has plenty of useful abilities besides PC. The problem is that the Obelisks that will be casting PC will never need to use those abilities.


What if the obelisk cost 300 (subject to balance) minerals?

Making it more expensive simply changes the mathematics about what the optimal number of them is to build. And since it scales with the number of probes working the patch, all you're really doing is shifting around when you start building them.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 10:19 PM
Further, recalling into your base is useless outside of your base being under severe attack. So obviously, you're only going to use the recall ability on an offensive Obelisk.



I sneak my warp-prism into your base and warp-in zealots. They destroy your drones. I recall call them.

I move my collusus against your forces. You threaten to overwhelm it with zerglings. I recall it.

I assualt your base with carriers. You wear away at my shields and begin inflicting permanant HP damage. I recall damaged carriers heal their hitpoints and send them back.

I move my mothership to one base to defend against your attack. You begin attacking my expo. I recall my mothership to that expo.

I sneak my warp-rays into your base to quickly destroy your spire. You counter with Corrupters. I recall them.

Aldrius
06-21-2009, 10:26 PM
No, you're choosing between increased income which can be used to build anything including defensive units, and a purely defensive unit. There is no choice, no professional player will build PF's.

Thing is here.

No defensive unit is as cost effective as the Planetary Fortress. At least in theory. So building a PF WILL be useful in certain situations.


Making it more expensive simply changes the mathematics about what the optimal number of them is to build. And since it scales with the number of probes working the patch, all you're really doing is shifting around when you start building them.

But if you make them expensive enough. It might wind up being balanced. If that optimum number is so high cost that it's impossible to hit realistically.

I kinda like the recall idea, but it... just... seems too strong I guess. I actually would really like a Null Shield that works on buildings.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 10:28 PM
I kinda like the recall idea, but it... just... seems too strong I guess. I actually would really like a Null Shield that works on buildings.

Isnt the point to make it strong enough to compete with Proton Charge.

Aldrius
06-21-2009, 10:29 PM
Isnt the point to make it strong enough to compete with Proton Charge.

No...

The point is to make it used in a similar capacity to Proton Charge.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 10:34 PM
Whats the difference?

Aldrius
06-21-2009, 10:39 PM
Uh...

Well, I mean if you gave the Obelisk a 'destroy all enemies' button then sure, people would use that in place of Proton Charge no problem... but that wouldn't solve anything.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 10:40 PM
Do you think recalling units is more powerful, less powerful or about the same as Proton Charge?

Aldrius
06-21-2009, 10:43 PM
Do you think recalling units is more powerful, less powerful or about the same as Proton Charge?

It's not on the same spectrum.

It's a completely different ability.

That is too strong. In general the Obelisk is just too powerful a building for what it costs.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 10:47 PM
So you think recalling units would be more powerful than +20% minerals.


Even if you could only recall one unit and it cost 200 energy (the entire energy the Obelisk has) it would still be more powerful than the extra minerals?

Aldrius
06-21-2009, 10:55 PM
So you think recalling units would be more powerful than +20% minerals.


Even if you could only recall one unit and it cost 200 energy (the entire energy the Obelisk has) it would still be more powerful than the extra minerals?

That is specifically what I did NOT just say.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 11:01 PM
You started by telling me they were two different abilities (something I already knew)

You then said it was too strong.

You then said the that Obelisk didnt cost enough (something I didnt ask you about)

So if I miss understood you could you restate wheter you think Recall would be more usefull, less useful or about the same as Proton Charge?

Aldrius
06-21-2009, 11:04 PM
You started by telling me they were two different abilities (something I already knew)

Not just two different abilities.

Two abilities that are impossible to compare.


You then said it was too strong.

It is too strong. But that has nothing to do with Proton Charge.


You then said the that Obelisk didnt cost enough (something I didnt ask you about)

I'm only allowed to talk about what you ask me...?

That's my solution to the Obelisk's problems. First thing to do: increase it's cost, and make it a power-provider again, so that there's actual competition involved.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 11:08 PM
sigh everythings a battle.....


lol

MattII
06-21-2009, 11:09 PM
So you think recalling units would be more powerful than +20% minerals.

It's not about power, Recall is to situational to be really useful, unless it auto-added a recall building to every unit the player owned.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 11:12 PM
Couldnt you use recall whenever a unit was under attack to save it? You would in effect save yourself the minerals required to remake that unit.

Aldrius
06-21-2009, 11:14 PM
sigh everythings a battle.....


lol

I... didn't make anything into a battle...? What do you mean exactly? Most of the asides I made in my last post were meant to be more :p and less :rolleyes:.


Couldnt you use recall whenever a unit was under attack to save it? You would in effect save yourself the minerals required to remake that unit.

That's more of a WarCraft 3 thing than a StarCraft 2 thing. SC2 is just too fast-paced and there's too many units for something like that to be effective or competitive with Proton Charge.

MattII
06-21-2009, 11:16 PM
Couldnt you use recall whenever a unit was under attack to save it? You would in effect save yourself the minerals required to remake that unit.

1. go home
2. select Obelisk
3. return to battle

I hope your guy's still alive by that time.

ArcherofAiur
06-21-2009, 11:20 PM
Hotkeys my man.

unentschieden
06-22-2009, 01:19 AM
Think of it like this. Two Protoss players, one uses PC, the other does not. Both build 30 Probes, but the guy using PC uses it at 15, 20, 25, and thirty Probes built.

At first, the benefit from using PC is slim, he spent 150 minerals getting the Obelisk, so he'll be behind for a little bit. But as more and more Probes get built, and he casts PC more times, his income rate increases exponentially. Eventually that 150 loss at the start has turned into a huge gain, that just gets bigger and bigger the more Probes he adds. An income boost like that for what is really a minor setback at the start can inflate his economy to a point his opponent could never reach. And the person with the better economy naturally has it better off - getting more units faster. Factor in equal micro, and the person with the bigger army will win more likely than not.

But that is how itīs supposed to work. Itīs also effectivly how it works in SC:BW, either you invest in economy (Peons[+obelisk]) or you focus on Military(depending how nerdy you are you might also differinate defense, tech...).
Lets imagine the economy Protoss buys 2 Obelisks a 150 Minerals. The Military Protoss Needs to use the equivalent (3Zealots for example) to hurt the Ecodude by a bigger amount, maybe by forcing him to "waste" energy on non-PC or destroying Probes.

Itīs essentially the same, just the complexity has been inflated.

Wankey
06-22-2009, 01:43 AM
Really no point in discussing this. On paper it's probably boring, just lets see how it is when the beta starts.

it's probably already different.

SaharaDrac
06-22-2009, 02:29 AM
Really no point in discussing this. On paper it's probably boring, just lets see how it is when the beta starts.

it's probably already different.

First intelligent post I've seen in this thread in a while.

PLAY THE GAME FIRST!

Nicol Bolas
06-22-2009, 02:31 AM
I sneak my warp-prism into your base and warp-in zealots. They destroy your drones. I recall call them.

To an Obelisk you built explicitly for this purpose.


I move my collusus against your forces. You threaten to overwhelm it with zerglings. I recall it.

To an Obelisk you built explicitly for this purpose.

Oh, and you have now ceded territory to your opponent. Good job.


I assualt your base with carriers. You wear away at my shields and begin inflicting permanant HP damage. I recall damaged carriers heal their hitpoints and send them back.

To a group of Obelisks you built explicitly for this purpose. Especially since Obelisks also have shield regen.

Oh, and while you're recalling your attack force rather than, I don't know, killing your opponent, they use their factories to pump out the 6 Thors necessary to instantly strip your Carriers of all of their Intercepters. Good job.


I move my mothership to one base to defend against your attack. You begin attacking my expo. I recall my mothership to that expo.

It already has the ability to warp to a building of yours.


I sneak my warp-rays into your base to quickly destroy your spire. You counter with Corrupters. I recall them.

Honestly, if you walk into a Zerg base and get hit with anti-air that was there waiting for you, you deserve it. It's not like the Protoss have an almost-free, perma-cloaked unit designed for the sole and specific purpose of scouting or anything.

The point is that you can make as many Obelisks as you want. If you want an Obelisk specifically for recalls, you can. Just as you can make Obelisks specifically for PC.

In short, abilities will not make this work. The Obelisk already has useful abilities. The problem is that the Obelisks you use for PCs are not the ones you use for those abilities. They never will be.

MattII
06-22-2009, 02:36 AM
But that is how itīs supposed to work. Itīs also effectivly how it works in SC:BW, either you invest in economy (Peons[+obelisk]) or you focus on Military(depending how nerdy you are you might also differinate defense, tech...).
Lets imagine the economy Protoss buys 2 Obelisks a 150 Minerals. The Military Protoss Needs to use the equivalent (3Zealots for example) to hurt the Ecodude by a bigger amount, maybe by forcing him to "waste" energy on non-PC or destroying Probes.

In an economy of 15 probes those Obelisks pay themselves off in about two minutes, and as BR3 showed, the underwhelming extra might provide by 3 Zealots is pretty much nothing by that stage.

unentschieden
06-22-2009, 05:12 AM
In an economy of 15 probes those Obelisks pay themselves off in about two minutes, and as BR3 showed, the underwhelming extra might provide by 3 Zealots is pretty much nothing by that stage.

The time is just a question of numbers. Obelisks WILL eventually pay for themselves otherwise theyīd be of dubious value.

Their bonus is multiplicative but that is not a big issue - otherwise the Multiplicative effect of AoE attacks would make SiegeTanks imba for example.

Maybe the obelisk itself gets more expensive, maybe PC costs more or lasts not as long. There are many ways to turn the Obelisk into a more long-Term investment.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 05:25 AM
But that is how itīs supposed to work. Itīs also effectivly how it works in SC:BW, either you invest in economy (Peons[+obelisk]) or you focus on Military(depending how nerdy you are you might also differinate defense, tech...).
Lets imagine the economy Protoss buys 2 Obelisks a 150 Minerals. The Military Protoss Needs to use the equivalent (3Zealots for example) to hurt the Ecodude by a bigger amount, maybe by forcing him to "waste" energy on non-PC or destroying Probes.

Itīs essentially the same, just the complexity has been inflated.

If you hadn't noticed, inflation in bad. Eventually it has to pop.

With the Obelisk, 300 =/= 300. 300 could equal x^y over the course of the game. Exponential growth can only be balanced by exponential growth.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 07:53 AM
@Nicol your making it sound like Obelisks are free and you can have as many as I want. To recall a force of 12 zealots that would take 12 obelisk. Thats 1800 minerals. Keep in mind that for the price of three obelisks you can make a whole another expansion. Ultimalty Obelisks increase the rate at which you havest a set of minerals you already control (up to +20% probe saturation rate, no more). For the mere price of 400 min you can effectively double your mineral intake (provided you continue to hit 0p throughout the game). Now that sounds OP!

Also once that base is mined out all the minerals you invested in Obelisks are only useful for the other two abilities. If you want to fast min at your expos you need to reinvest all those minerals. Its the equiavalent of building two nexus at each expo to get a 1/5th increase in mining rate.

Not saying that it doesnt increase your mineral gathering rate but you guys are widely exagerating the effect. In reality it should play out like Starcraft 1 workers did where you balanced progression of your harvesting elements against production of your war machine.


And the mothership example was presuming that Recall replaced Wormhole transite. I would not see the need for both.

unentschieden
06-22-2009, 10:09 AM
If you hadn't noticed, inflation in bad. Eventually it has to pop.
But this is the point, to increase economical distinction between the races.



With the Obelisk, 300 =/= 300. 300 could equal x^y over the course of the game. Exponential growth can only be balanced by exponential growth.

The point is that Obelisks are a investment that will grant a benefit under certain conditions.

Classically youīd just invest in Peons that would pay off if keep alive and harvesting for a certain Time.
With the Obelisk itīd be a certain amount of PC casts with a certain amount of targets to be worth it. The issue isnīt that the growth is exponal itīs that itīs basically no different than what we had before.

Nicol Bolas
06-22-2009, 12:30 PM
Nicol your making it sound like Obelisks are free and you can have as many as I want. To recall a force of 12 zealots that would take 12 obelisk. Thats 1800 minerals. Keep in mind that for the price of three obelisks you can make a whole another expansion. Ultimalty Obelisks increase the rate at which you havest a set of minerals you already control (up to +20% probe saturation rate, no more). For the mere price of 400 min you can effectively double your mineral intake (provided you continue to hit 0p throughout the game).

400 minerals doubles intake? Since when? Expansion require additional workers. Those, not unsurprisingly, cost money.

There is a reason why expansions are considered expensive. The #1 cause for most timing pushes is expansion timing. It costs a lot of money that isn't going into units.

As for how many Obelisks you have, if they can only recall a single unit, why bother ever using it? There is no unit worth spending the actions necessary to perform such a maneuver on.

Further, if you really want to do this recall stuff, you will build Obelisks specifically to do that. And you will use the minerals that your PC-dedicated Obelisks give you. No unit is worth stopping your economic production for, not even a Mothership.


And the mothership example was presuming that Recall replaced Wormhole transite. I would not see the need for both.

I would. Using Obelisks to get around is silly; you can just use a Pylon. They're cheaper, and you'd need it anyway for Obelisks to begin with. It's simply a much better ability.


The point is that Obelisks are a investment that will grant a benefit under certain conditions.

The point being made is that it is fundamentally stronger. It is a non-linear increase, as it scales with the number of Probes. Mules and Spawn Larva are linear. An increasing, non-linear function will always beat a linear one.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 12:56 PM
But this is the point, to increase economical distinction between the races.

No. The point is to increase economical distinction between the races in a BALANCED manner. PC does not achieve this.

unentschieden
06-22-2009, 02:35 PM
Well, let everyone else decide for themselves if balance concerns are convincing arguments right now.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 03:29 PM
Well, let everyone else decide for themselves if balance concerns are convincing arguments right now.

You're welcome to believe its not imbalanced, but math can't exactly lie.

SaharaDrac
06-22-2009, 03:34 PM
You're welcome to believe its not imbalanced, but math can't exactly lie.

Correction: Assumed math.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 03:36 PM
Correction: Assumed math.

Correction: accurate math based on known variables.

SaharaDrac
06-22-2009, 03:37 PM
Correction: accurate math based on known variables.

Another correction: assumed math of old builds.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 03:39 PM
Another correction: assumed math of old builds.
2 corrections: 1) Proton Charge hasn't changed, only the Dark Pylon/Obelisk its attached to, ie. still correct math.
2) my data not based on builds or videos but instead on QnA's, so that point is moot

SaharaDrac
06-22-2009, 03:56 PM
2 corrections: 1) Proton Charge hasn't changed, only the Dark Pylon/Obelisk its attached to, ie. still correct math.
2) my data not based on builds or videos but instead on QnA's, so that point is moot

My point is wait for the beta to start. You are only guessing and postulating what the mechanics will work like. Things are different in execution than on paper.

Jesus, you're a douche, man. You bring this forum down.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 04:03 PM
My point is wait for the beta to start. You are only guessing and postulating what the mechanics will work like. Things are different in execution than on paper.

Jesus, you're a douche, man. You bring this forum down.

And my point is I don't need beta to see that obvious imba is imba. EVERYTHING idea ever debated on this or any other forum is just guessing and postulating what the mechanics will work like. Whether its PC or the Thor or the the corn. Things can be different in execution than on paper, but that doesn't mean we can form logical guesses based on known data and passed experiences. I will absolutely watch the beta and the effect the PC has, and if it turns out I'm wrong than so be it. I'd rather be vocal about my educated guess on the mechanic and be wrong, than say nothing and have the mechanic live flawed.

I may be a douche, but I can promise you I have changed this forum (now and when it was BF) for the better.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 04:18 PM
As for how many Obelisks you have, if they can only recall a single unit, why bother ever using it? There is no unit worth spending the actions necessary to perform such a maneuver on.

You know how I know when a mechanic has potential? When one person tells me its too powerful and another person tells me its not useful at all :)



Also Demo is actually right. This is just theorycrafting. Theorycrafting is notoriously bad at issues of balance. His impression is that it will be too powerful. He claims to have worked this all out in some mathematical formula but hes is doing the same thing we are. Edjucated guesses. Ours just happen to dissagree with his.

BTW Demo If you really have created a master equation for mining rates in SC2 taking into account all factors I would love to see it. Solve for time.

FoxSpirit
06-22-2009, 04:25 PM
I may be a douche, but I can promise you I have changed this forum (now and when it was BF) for the better.

Ah, DS... I'd say never change but that would be doing you a disservice :D

SaharaDrac
06-22-2009, 05:04 PM
While I agree with you that discussion and theorycrafting are fine, DemoSquid speaks as though his opinions are Starcraft Dogma passed down from on high, because he throws numbers in his posts.

You should say "I'm concerned this mechanic is flawed", but you don't. You say "This mechanic IS flawed, I know it for a fact because MATH. See how dumb you guys are?"

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 05:05 PM
While I agree with you that discussion and theorycrafting are fine, DemoSquid speaks as though his opinions are Starcraft Dogma passed down from on high, because he throws numbers in his posts.

You should say "I'm concerned this mechanic is flawed", but you don't. You say "This mechanic IS flawed, I know it for a fact because MATH. See how dumb you guys are?"

I'm concerned this mechanic is flawed because I know for a fact exponential macro for only one of the 3 races is bad.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 05:20 PM
When all of macro is exponential anyway. When the base scaling is completly different for Zerg then Terran or Protoss. When supply is different for each race.

SaharaDrac
06-22-2009, 05:23 PM
1 race gets more larvae. The other 2 get more minerals. Those are their macro mechanics. they're both a production bonus.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 05:23 PM
When all of macro is exponential anyway.

But its balanced because all races have access to it. PC makes the Protoss curve stronger than the Terran or Zerg, which is unbalanced and thus bad.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 05:26 PM
But its balanced because all races have access to it. PC makes the Protoss curve stronger than the Terran or Zerg, which is unbalanced and thus bad.

lol you remind me of the snl skit with george h bush "its bad, its bad"




Umm macro in SC is not balanced. Zerg can expand much faster than T or P. You say all races have access but T and P do not have access to a new expansion that early in the game.

Now what is balanced is the game as a whole.

Nicol Bolas
06-22-2009, 05:27 PM
1 race gets more larvae. The other 2 get more minerals. Those are their macro mechanics. they're both a production bonus.

Um, no; it doesn't work that way. You have to look at the way the bonuses work. You can't just say, "hey, they all give you more money in some undefined way, so they must be balanced."

The Zerg mechanic is the weakest because you have to keep spending money to make more money. Once you have your OCCs or Obelisks, every bonus resource you get is effectively free.

The Protoss mechanic is the most powerful because it is a function of two variables: how often you cast it and how many probes gain the effect. OCCs don't get better just because you have more SCVs. Nor does Spawn Larva. PC gets better with both proper use and number of available probes.


Zerg can expand much faster than T or P.

The only reason the Zerg can do that is because they make Hatcheries to increase larva production. That, combined with the propensity for map designers to make natural expansions with easily defended choke points, makes building the second Hatchery at the natural the standard move for the Zerg. A map with no natural is a map the Zerg can't expand on quickly.

The Zerg may have access to an early expand, but the nature of their production makes it impossible for them to use it more effectively than they would with just their main.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 05:30 PM
BTW Demo If you really have created a master equation for mining rates in SC2 taking into account all factors I would love to see it. Solve for time.

Note: this math was done by me, and reviewed by Nicol Bolas for accuracy.

X = Workers
5 = Resources Gathered Per Trip in SC2
6 = Length of Round Trip (I believe its ~6 seconds, which is the number I'll use)
IPS = Income Per Second

SC1: (X x 5)/6 = IPS

ex. You have 10 Probes. (10 x 5)/6 = 8.3 minerals per second.

Its not hard to figure that out. This is the standard gathering rate for SC2. The problem, as I have illustrated multiple times, is when you introduce the Macro Mechanics.

For Zerg, Spawn Larva only has a direct effect on income rate IF you use the Drones you create to mine. So when using the mechanic the equation becomes

(X [+0-4] x 5)/6 = IPS

For Terran, when you use MULES, you're adding a unit that gathers 15 instead of 5. We'll call MULES Y. So the equation is

[(X x 5) + (Y x 15)]/6 = IPS

For Protoss, each Probe gets an extra one mineral per trip when Proton Charge is cast. The equation is

(X x 6)/6 = IPS

Now that looks pretty simple at first glance. But lets determine some of those variables. Say, X = 10 and X = 30.

First, Spawn Larva. We'll say you use 2 of your 4 Larva as Drones to mine.

[(10 + 2) x 5]/6 = 10
[(30 + 2) x 5]/6 = 26

Terran MULES now. We'll say you also have 2.

[(10 x 5) + (2 x 15)]/6 = 13
[(30 x 5) + (2 + x 15)]/6 = 30

(10 x 6)/6 = 10
(30 x 6)/6 = 30

From this, we can see a few things.

- At any given time, Zerg will need more Drones mining than either Terran or Protoss.
- Depending on power requirements, MULES may actually be the most imbalanced of the mechanics because you could have many more than 2 at a time with more OC's.
- Proton Charge increases income in a curve the more Probes it effects.
- Both MULES and Proton Charge provide an economic boost that Zerg do not have access to. Zerg do, however, have the potential for greater army size more rapidly, but that's their nature anyway.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 05:31 PM
Um, no; it doesn't work that way. You have to look at the way the bonuses work. You can't just say, "hey, they all give you more money in some undefined way, so they must be balanced."

The Zerg mechanic is the weakest because you have to keep spending money to make more money. Once you have your OCCs or Obelisks, every bonus resource you get is effectively free.

The Protoss mechanic is the most powerful because it is a function of two variables: how often you cast it and how many probes gain the effect. OCCs don't get better just because you have more SCVs. Nor does Spawn Larva. PC gets better with both proper use and number of available probes.


And Terran have Reactors and Zerg have fast creep and terran have siege tanks and zerg have mobile base defence and terran can salvage buildings and zerg have units that regenerate super fast and terrans have giant mecha machines that rain death into the sky and zerg have mind control on a movable burrowing unit and terran have firebat/vulture hybrids and zerg have captital ships that spawn units with every attack and terran have dropships that heal and zerg have...

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 05:34 PM
Note: this math was done by me, and reviewed by Nicol Bolas for accuracy.

X = Workers
5 = Resources Gathered Per Trip in SC2
6 = Length of Round Trip (I believe its ~6 seconds, which is the number I'll use)
IPS = Income Per Second



Your equation doesnt take into account exapansions, saturation number of minerals, how many minerals patches are present, cutting worker production, using drones to make buildings, worker raids, scouting with workers, how much Command centers cost compared to hatcheries, etc...

so no you havnt solved the master equation for SC mining. Youve made approximations about a limited part of the system using assumptions. I like the effort though.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 05:37 PM
Your equation doesnt take into account exapansions, saturation number of minerals, cutting worker production, using drones to make buildings, worker raids, scouting with workers, how much Command centers cost compared to hatcheries, etc...

so no you havnt solved the master equation for SC mining. I like the effort though.

That's the "base" equation. I never said I made a master one. But I don't have to. It is absolutely, 100% clear from the base the MULES and Proton Charge offer a better income rate than Spawn Larva.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 05:42 PM
100% clear from the base the MULES and Proton Charge offer a better income rate than Spawn Larva.

and its also 100% clear that Spawn Larva offer a better production rate than MULEs or Proton Charge.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 05:44 PM
and its also 100% clear that Spawn Larva offer a better production rate than MULEs or Proton Charge.

Which is meaningless to income rate, because of the factors you mentioned like saturation.

Trouble
06-22-2009, 05:46 PM
Note: this math was done by me, and reviewed by Nicol Bolas for accuracy.

X = Workers
5 = Resources Gathered Per Trip in SC2
6 = Length of Round Trip (I believe its ~6 seconds, which is the number I'll use)
IPS = Income Per Second

SC1: (X x 5)/6 = IPS

ex. You have 10 Probes. (10 x 5)/6 = 8.3 minerals per second.

Its not hard to figure that out. This is the standard gathering rate for SC2. The problem, as I have illustrated multiple times, is when you introduce the Macro Mechanics.

For Zerg, Spawn Larva only has a direct effect on income rate IF you use the Drones you create to mine. So when using the mechanic the equation becomes

(X [+0-4] x 5)/6 = IPS

For Terran, when you use MULES, you're adding a unit that gathers 15 instead of 5. We'll call MULES Y. So the equation is

[(X x 5) + (Y x 15)]/6 = IPS

For Protoss, each Probe gets an extra one mineral per trip when Proton Charge is cast. The equation is

(X x 6)/6 = IPS

Now that looks pretty simple at first glance. But lets determine some of those variables. Say, X = 10 and X = 30.

First, Spawn Larva. We'll say you use 2 of your 4 Larva as Drones to mine.

[(10 + 2) x 5]/6 = 10
[(30 + 2) x 5]/6 = 26

Terran MULES now. We'll say you also have 2.

[(10 x 5) + (2 x 15)]/6 = 13
[(30 x 5) + (2 + x 15)]/6 = 30

(10 x 6)/6 = 10
(30 x 6)/6 = 30

From this, we can see a few things.

- At any given time, Zerg will need more Drones mining than either Terran or Protoss.
- Depending on power requirements, MULES may actually be the most imbalanced of the mechanics because you could have many more than 2 at a time with more OC's.
- Proton Charge increases income in a curve the more Probes it effects.
- Both MULES and Proton Charge provide an economic boost that Zerg do not have access to. Zerg do, however, have the potential for greater army size more rapidly, but that's their nature anyway.


I'm not sure from reading this. Does your numbers for Terrans also include that the SCV can mine the same mineral patch while the MULE is mining also?

FoxSpirit
06-22-2009, 05:49 PM
May I mention that this discussion goes nowhere. The current argument is like
2 races, if one has 120% attack power, the other should have 120% hitpoints.

That's not asymetric balance.

In Starcraft, balance over time is not perfect, early-, mid- and late-game the matchups are different. The game is only balanced as a whole, not on each distinctive point.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 05:53 PM
I'm not sure from reading this. Does your numbers for Terrans also include that the SCV can mine the same mineral patch while the MULE is mining also?

They don't have to. Its a base.


May I mention that this discussion goes nowhere. The current argument is like
2 races, if one has 120% attack power, the other should have 120% hitpoints.

That's not asymetric balance.

In Starcraft, balance over time is not perfect, early-, mid- and late-game the matchups are different. The game is only balanced as a whole, not on each distinctive point.

True, but if there's any base the game needs to start being balanced on, its income rate.

SaharaDrac
06-22-2009, 05:53 PM
Are you really this obtuse? Yes, the other 2 mechanics give a better INCOME rate than spawn larvae. So? Do all the mechanics have to be about income? Spawn larvae lets you remacro your forces, rush, and expand more quickly, it also lets you have more drones for static defense and teching. Zerg buildings require drones to build. That's a disadvantage. This optional mechanic makes up for some of that! That's IT'S advantage. It's a military advantage, not an economic one. That is GOOD! You're so frustrating, man! Why do all the mechanics have to give the same bonus? It's called rqacial diversity. it's what makes Starcraft a great game. Do you even play Starcraft?

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 05:56 PM
Are you really this obtuse? Yes, the other 2 mechanics give a better INCOME rate than spawn larvae. So? Do all the mechanics have to be about income? Spawn larvae lets you remacro your forces, rush, and expand more quickly. That's IT'S advantage. It's a military advantage, not an economic one. That is GOOD! You're so frustrating, man! Why do all the mechanics have to give the same bonus? It's called rqacial diversity. it's what makes Starcraft a great game. Do you even play Starcraft?

I'll just say this: without income, you have no military. It doesn't matter how many larva you have, if you don't have the minerals to morph them into anything.

Regardless of what you may think, minerals are the most important thing in the game, followed by vespene gas.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 05:59 PM
Lets keep this from going ugly. Right now this is just looking like a supply side vs demand side economics arguement.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 06:01 PM
Lets keep this from going ugly. Right now this is just looking like a supply side vs demand side economics arguement.

It is. And I'm saying that without the extra supplies given by MULES and Proton Charge, Zerg are disadvantaged.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 06:06 PM
Ok well lets just end it. No one is getting anywhere.

Let me ask this. What can we all agree on?

We obviously cant agree on what to do with Proton Charge itself.

Can we all agree the other Obelisk abilities should be improved to compete with Proton Charge?

Can we all agree some form of a shared mana pool solves one of the Obelisks problems?

Rake
06-22-2009, 06:13 PM
My model for the obelisk based on this discussion and including ideas from others:

-All obelisks have shared energy. This creates tension between any spells cast.

-Proton charge only hits a limited number of probes per cast. This stops the problem of scaling (also known as multiplaticive issue and the mass effect issue) and creates a predictable number of minerals per cast for the protoss.

-The other spell(s) on the obelisk are sufficiently powerful to frequently and strategically compete with proton charge for energy cost. This is the most difficult part. I have suggested that the obelisk be linked to warp in. ArcherorAiur has suggested it be used for recall. Any further suggestions are more than welcome.




If spawn larvae is not as good as the Terran or Protoss mechanics then Blizzard can just lower the cost of each cast, increase the number of larvae produced or have two spells, one which produces a lot of drones and another which produces more larvae.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 06:13 PM
Can we all agree the other Obelisk abilities should be improved to compete with Proton Charge?

Can we all agree some form of a shared mana pool solves one of the Obelisks problems?

No and no. Proton Charge doesn't need a counterpart ability. It needs to be nerfed or altered so as not to create exponential growth. Shared energy may decrease how often its used, but it doesn't change the fact the mechanic is flawed at its core.

The best solution so far is actually Rake's idea to limit it to a certain amount of probes.

Rake
06-22-2009, 06:21 PM
No and no. Proton Charge doesn't need a counterpart ability. It needs to be nerfed or altered so as not to create exponential growth. Shared energy may decrease how often its used, but it doesn't change the fact the mechanic is flawed at its core.

The best solution so far is actually Rake's idea to limit it to a certain amount of probes.

Just to be clear, it wasn't my idea but I can't find where I found it. :)

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 06:22 PM
Just to be clear, it wasn't my idea but I can't find where I found it. :)

Well whoever it was, good idea.

Nicol Bolas
06-22-2009, 06:25 PM
It's called rqacial diversity. it's what makes Starcraft a great game.

And there are some things you cannot have "rqacial" diversity on. Income is one of them. All races need to be able to get income at an approximately even rate with an approximately even amount of mineral input. Just like every race needs a flying detector, every race needs to have resource parity. And personally, I found the balance of this in SC1 to be poor.

Look at just how balanced SC1 is without using specific map tropes. Every map must have a natural expansion, or the Zerg are disadvantaged. Every map must be wall-inable, or the Terrans are disadvantaged. And so on. If you have to rely on your map makers to keep your maps balanced (beyond mere symmetry, of course), then your game isn't as balanced as you're making it out to be.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 06:30 PM
And there are some things you cannot have "rqacial" diversity on. Income is one of them.

Can we quote you on that? Like if the macro mechanics stay racially diverse into retail and the game is balanced and Starcraft sells millions of copies etc..

Nicol Bolas
06-22-2009, 06:41 PM
Like if the macro mechanics stay racially diverse into retail and the game is balanced and Starcraft sells millions of copies

StarCraft is going to sell millions of copies regardless. And Blizzard will eventually make it balanced however they want, via some combination of gameplay mechanics and oddball map tropes.

Further, there's a difference between racial diversity of macro mechanics and creating income disparity between different races. And, as I pointed out myself, SC1 screws up income disparity; you only restore balance by creating natural expansions and other such nonsense.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 06:42 PM
Can we quote you on that? Like if the macro mechanics stay racially diverse into retail and the game is balanced and Starcraft sells millions of copies etc..

Except it will never be truly balanced. As Nicol said, the only reason SC:BW appears balanced is because of common map features. In reality it is not perfectly balanced.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 06:44 PM
And, as I pointed out myself, SC1 screws up income disparity; you only restore balance by creating natural expansions and other such nonsense.


Thats funny cause I think the zerg fast nat is a really exciting part of Starcraft gameplay. I suspect Blizzard does too since the showcased it in BR3.




and now you guys are argueing that SC:BW is not in fact balanced....

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 06:47 PM
and now you guys are argueing that SC:BW is not in fact balanced....

Because only an ignorant fool would believe it is.

But you're right, it is OT.

Rake
06-22-2009, 06:52 PM
The map has always been considered the final part of balancing. The question is how much should this be the case? The more balanced the core of starcraft is the more flexible the maps can be but you have to trade that against race diversity.

Do you think that the "protoss have to expand faster than terran and zerg have to expand faster than protoss" should stay?

What about any other economic quirks from SC1?

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 06:55 PM
If SC:BW isnt balanced what game is?


@Rake: good post. Yes ecomomic diversity "quirks" should stay. This includes when each race can expand and how there mineral gathering scales.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 06:59 PM
If SC:BW isnt balanced what game is?

No RTS can be perfectly balanced unless all factions are exactly the same. SC:BW is the the closest anyone has come.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 07:00 PM
So Starcraft 2 has no hope of being balanced. Great :P



Out of curiosity what race do you think is overpowered in SC:BW?

Nicol Bolas
06-22-2009, 07:02 PM
Do you think that the "protoss have to expand faster than terran and zerg have to expand faster than protoss" should stay?

No, I don't. Especially in SC2, where there are so many more tools for harassing multiple bases at once.

The Battle Reports are merely anecdotes, but it does say something when the Zerg's third expansion failed miserably in both games. Yes, the Zerg never got Nydus Worms or other such things, but there may be something to the idea that having lots of expansions in SC2 will be much more difficult than in SC1. With things like Banshees, Warp-In, Stalker Blink, Reapers, Mutalisks, and the like, there are many strong options for harassment.

Rake
06-22-2009, 07:02 PM
So Starcraft 2 has no hopes of being balanced :P



Out of curiosity what race do you think is overpowered in SC:BW?

Bisu and Jaedong are overpowered and should be nerfed. :D

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 07:05 PM
Out of curiosity what race do you think is overpowered in SC:BW?

Given a dead (ie. flat, featureless) map, Zerg.

MattII
06-22-2009, 07:05 PM
What if, rather than setting a hard limit on the number Probes PC can effect, that the cost of PC was based on the number of Probes effected (say 5-10 points/probe). I also came up with the idea that PC has a cooldown (1 minute), and if you use it again before that you accrue damage on you Probes (about 1 Hp/3 seconds).

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 07:12 PM
Given a dead (ie. flat, featureless) map, Zerg.

How bout given a balanced map that people would want to play on. Heck I could make a map with nothing not even minerals and terran would always win.

DemolitionSquid
06-22-2009, 07:17 PM
How bout given a balanced map that people would want to play on. Heck I could make a map with no minerals and terran would always win.

If the Terran didn't liftoff, Zerg would still win with proper micro. Liftoff creates a stalemate.

Rake
06-22-2009, 07:18 PM
What if, rather than setting a hard limit on the number Probes PC can effect, that the cost of PC was based on the number of Probes effected (say 5-10 points/probe). I also came up with the idea that PC has a cooldown (1 minute), and if you use it again before that you accrue damage on you Probes (about 1 Hp/3 seconds).

I quite like the idea of the cost being based on the number of probes affected. However, it could lead to people accidentally wasting large amounts of energy by clicking in the wrong place and not being able to cast something different afterwards like they planned. Especially since a hard limit can achieve almost the same thing with multiple clicks.

I don't like the damage to probes idea for a few reasons:
-it is harsh on new players who will accidentally kill all their probes
-pros will use it anyway since they consider they can protect their base

Cool downs might be a useful addition for balancing but in general I think they should be minimized. Blizzard will work it out.

@ Archer: thanks :)

n00bonicPlague
06-22-2009, 07:28 PM
Interesting discussion. It's grown much larger than I ever imagined it to.

Anyway, I rethought some stuff. I believe "Call Down Extra Supplies" can be taken from the Terrans completely (since they already have MULEs and Scanner Sweep) and given to the Protoss in the form of my "Psionic Flux" ability mentioned above in the OP. Psionic Flux not only boosts the psi supply of a pylon but also increases the range of a pylon's influence, thus saving on the time and resources that would've been spent on building another pylon.

Psionic Flux and Proton Charge can be given to the Nexus (with their own energy bank), and then the Shield and Energy Regens can remain on the Obelisk (with their own energy bank). Also, it might be worth a shot giving Obelisks a range of psionic influence so they can act as warp-in points for Warp Gates and a few cannons. It could be even more interesting if we made Obelisks the only buildings that can receive a warp-in -- excluding pylons from doing so.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 07:35 PM
Interesting discussion. It's grown much larger than I ever imagined it to.

Anyway, I rethought some stuff. I believe "Call Down Extra Supplies" can be taken from the Terrans completely (since they already have MULEs and Scanner Sweep) and given to the Protoss in the form of my "Psionic Flux" ability mentioned above in the OP. Psionic Flux not only boosts the psi supply of a pylon but also increases the range of a pylon's influence, thus saving on the time and resources that would've been spent on building another pylon.

Psionic Flux and Proton Charge can be given to the Nexus (with their own energy bank), and then the Shield and Energy Regens can remain on the Obelisk (with their own energy bank).

Hmmm I think I could support this idea. Although im not happy that it makes the nexus similar to the OC the benifits might outwiegh this. Psionic Flux would be permanant right?

Ok Couple things.

We need a good replacement for calldown supplies on the OC.

We need a third ability on the Nexus. *cough recall cough*





Also, it might be worth a shot giving Obelisks a range of psionic influence so they can act as warp-in points for Warp Gates and a few cannons. It could be even more interesting if we made Obelisks the only buildings that can receive a warp-in -- excluding pylons from doing so.
Not a fan of this stuff though. Kinda convuluted. If you want the obelisk to have warp-in it should be a dark pylon.

Nicol Bolas
06-22-2009, 07:35 PM
How bout given a balanced map that people would want to play on.

The fact that you have to predicate the question on the map gives you the answer. If your game's balance is so reliant on the use of specific map tropes, then your game's balance has a problem.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 07:38 PM
The fact that you have to predicate the question on the map gives you the answer. If your game's balance is so reliant on the use of specific map tropes, then your game's balance has a problem.


Isnt problem suppossed to imply something bad? A flat featureless map doesnt sound all that great to me but if you think thats problem free your welcome to play on one.

Nicol Bolas
06-22-2009, 08:01 PM
Isnt problem suppossed to imply something bad?

If a map must have certain features in order to be balanced, then your map is compensating for something that your game mechanics aren't doing.

It's one thing to have map rules like "you must provide X mineral patches in the main" or some such. That, I can understand. The problem is when the rules start sounding like the Infield Fly Rule or some other Obvious Rule Patch (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ObviousRulePatch).

The game doesn't need to be balanced on a perfectly featureless map. But it shouldn't have the strict mapmaking requirements that it does now.

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 08:47 PM
Ok two other thoughts

First since we have a open slot on the OC I think allot of people would like to see a Drop Pod ability that calls down marines. Maybe for 300 minerals and 50 energy the Terran can call down 5 marines.

Second, we could make the Nexus abiltiy upgrading a pylon into a dark pylon. Like for 100 energy


Dark Infusion

Turns Pylon into Dark Pylon

+2 energy, +3 radius, can recharge energy, can recharge shields

MattII
06-22-2009, 09:40 PM
I quite like the idea of the cost being based on the number of probes affected. However, it could lead to people accidentally wasting large amounts of energy by clicking in the wrong place and not being able to cast something different afterwards like they planned. Especially since a hard limit can achieve almost the same thing with multiple clicks.

Okay, what about giving it single unit selection, but rather than a timed period, it could be a channeling ability, with the effect continuing until the energy exhausted.


I don't like the damage to probes idea for a few reasons:
-it is harsh on new players who will accidentally kill all their probes
-pros will use it anyway since they consider they can protect their base

Okay then, what if with PC in effect Probes did +1 damage, but did 2 damage to themselves as well (normal damage, it applies to the shields first). I also thought about giving PCd Probes an explosive death (15-20 hp in a 2*2 area).


First since we have a open slot on the OC I think allot of people would like to see a Drop Pod ability that calls down marines. Maybe for 300 minerals and 50 energy the Terran can call down 5 marines.

Firstly, I'd prefer giving this to the PF (I'd consider it too military for the OC, given its current more support-style role), secondly, would this thing target only in the base, or could you drop it anywhere?


Second, we could make the Nexus abiltiy upgrading a pylon into a dark pylon. Like for 100 energy

Dark Infusion

Turns Pylon into Dark Pylon

+2 energy, +3 radius, can recharge energy, can recharge shields

Is DP different from Obelisk?

ArcherofAiur
06-22-2009, 10:21 PM
Is DP different from Obelisk?

No the idea would be that you can either use your nexus energy to turn a pylon into a obelisk/dark pylon OR you can use the energy to get more minerals.

unentschieden
06-23-2009, 01:18 AM
Iīd rather want the Nexus to stay unique in itīs near uselessness. Iīd rather make the Obelisks abilities more interesting/competing with each other. Random Rambling:
-PC is balanced around a cost of 150 Energy. That way it would limit the other abilities more.
-Shield recharge is iffy since shields now recharge just fine on their own. Instead itīs Shield overcharge which can increase Shieldpoints above their normal max. maybe 10% for a units regular value, easyly granting another "hit". It is a bit like shield matrix though...
-Argus link. I think that can stay, full energy HT right after Construction IS tempting already.

SaharaDrac
06-23-2009, 02:12 AM
And personally, I found the balance of this in SC1 to be poor.

And thusly, all of your opinions are invalid on this matter. Starcraft is the most balanced RTS video game of all time. Without question. It's not debatable. If you DO question that, then you are simply wrong.

Guess what? Starcraft 1's races have different rates of income. Things turned out OKAY. :cool:

DemolitionSquid
06-23-2009, 05:21 AM
And thusly, all of your opinions are invalid on this matter. Starcraft is the most balanced RTS video game of all time. Without question. It's not debatable. If you DO question that, then you are simply wrong.

Guess what? Starcraft 1's races have different rates of income. Things turned out OKAY. :cool:

We never debated it wasn't the most balanced RTS video game of all time. It is. We simply stated that its not perfect, and could never be. SC1 turned out OK, because the final balance is in the hands of the maps. We simply believe it should be balanced without the maps playing a factor.

Runei
06-23-2009, 05:25 AM
Yeah but maps are always going to be a balance factor. Common conversation in my little circle is things like "oh thats a P map" and the nature. I think it just adds more to the game, like home field advantage ya know? Fun stuff...

p.s. Destination is soooo a P map! >.<

Nicol Bolas
06-23-2009, 01:04 PM
Starcraft 1's races have different rates of income. Things turned out OKAY.

A lot of things turned out "OK" in SC1. That doesn't mean they can't be better. You shouldn't settle for "OK", especially when you're making a new game.

ArcherofAiur
06-23-2009, 04:45 PM
Different income rates is better. It diversifies each races gamestyle. And if that means that the game will only be as balanced as Starcraft (the most balanced RTS) well thats good enough for just about everyone but you.

DemolitionSquid
06-23-2009, 05:05 PM
Different income rates is better. It diversifies each races gamestyle. And if that means that the game will only be as balanced as Starcraft (the most balanced RTS) well thats good enough for just about everyone but you.

Even a toddler doing basic math could figure out that the bigger the discrepancy in income rates, the worse the balance. Its clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

ArcherofAiur
06-23-2009, 05:11 PM
Or blizzard.


Anyway can we talk about something else. Like Noobonics Nexus solution?

mr. peasant
06-23-2009, 05:33 PM
Even a toddler doing basic math could figure out that the bigger the discrepancy in income rates, the worse the balance. Its clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

Unless, there's a discrepancy with expense rates as well. For instance, if less minerals gets you further for one race, said race wouldn't need such a high income rate.

DemolitionSquid
06-23-2009, 05:34 PM
Unless, there's a discrepancy with expense rates as well. For instance, if less minerals gets you further for one race, said race wouldn't need such a high income rate.

If less minerals gets you further than another player, I'm pretty sure that's imba too.

ArcherofAiur
06-23-2009, 05:35 PM
Lifes imbalanced.

DemolitionSquid
06-23-2009, 05:41 PM
Lifes imbalanced.

Now ur catching on.

mr. peasant
06-23-2009, 06:38 PM
If less minerals gets you further than another player, I'm pretty sure that's imba too.

Well, if having a lower income rate is imbalanced against a certain race and lower unit cost:value ratio is imbalanced in favor of said race, wouldn't it balance out in the end? :D

DemolitionSquid
06-23-2009, 07:00 PM
Well, if having a lower income rate is imbalanced against a certain race and lower unit cost:value ratio is imbalanced in favor of said race, wouldn't it balance out in the end? :D

Possibly. But no race in Starcraft has such a visible cost:value. The Zerg are cheap, and thus most of their units are also weak. Their advantage is numbers, not high value.

mr. peasant
06-23-2009, 07:22 PM
I know, just pointing out that income rate doesn't need to match those of other races but rather the expenditure rate of the race in question. In other words, if the Zerg requires less resources to build its army it a given point in time, then it doesn't need to equal the other race's mining rate.

DemolitionSquid
06-23-2009, 07:29 PM
I know, just pointing out that income rate doesn't need to match those of other races but rather the expenditure rate of the race in question. In other words, if the Zerg requires less resources to build its army it a given point in time, then it doesn't need to equal the other race's mining rate.

But they do, because their units are proportionally weaker.

ArcherofAiur
06-23-2009, 07:31 PM
600 hp ultralisk

Pandonetho
06-23-2009, 07:36 PM
And that new brood lord tank.

DemolitionSquid
06-23-2009, 07:42 PM
600 hp ultralisk

One of two expections, which cost the same as a Thor and has 600 HP but no air attack.


And that new brood lord tank.

The other exception, who costs 200/200 and can only hit ground as well.

ArcherofAiur
06-23-2009, 07:47 PM
Thor has 400 hp.

mr. peasant
06-23-2009, 07:48 PM
Then, there are:

Zerglings; who are considered the best value for cost unit in SC1
Roaches; who are the love child of the Duracell bunny (you can't keep it down for long) and a B-horror villain (it keeps coming back)

So, it seems there are lots of exceptions.

Nicol Bolas
06-23-2009, 07:52 PM
Zerglings; who are considered the best value for cost unit in SC1

By who? A simple Psi Storm, or any AoE effect can deal with them.


Roaches; who are the love child of the Duracell bunny (you can't keep it down for long) and a B-horror villain (it keeps coming back)

Did you look at the regen rate for Roaches in BR3? Or hell, even BR2? It was for all practical purposes negligible while the Roaches were in combat.

DemolitionSquid
06-23-2009, 08:01 PM
Thor has 400 hp.

Yes, I know. Read my post again. Costs same as Thor, but has 600 HP and no air attack.


Then, there are:

Zerglings; who are considered the best value for cost unit in SC1

According to who? Zerglings die in droves. If there is any Zerg unit that's truely worth its cost, its the Hydralisk.


Roaches; who are the love child of the Duracell bunny (you can't keep it down for long) and a B-horror villain (it keeps coming back)

Roach regen is powerful, but they do abysmal DPS. They are tanks, not powerhouses.


So, it seems there are lots of exceptions.

No, it just seems your grasping at straws.

ArcherofAiur
06-23-2009, 08:04 PM
This is why argueing about balance on a forum is futile.

SaharaDrac
06-23-2009, 08:05 PM
When I said things were OKAY i was using it facetiously.

I believe Starcraft is perfect. I believe it's as perfect as an RTS video game with three races can be. I truly do believe that having the races balanced as they are allows for the meta game to constantly shift (thanks to what you two refer to as map "dependancy", but what I call map "diversity".)

I believe that map evolution should evolve the "balance of power" at the very highest skill levels as it does so. It's a method that works. You know how I know it works?

Because Starcraft works. On a level no other game has ever held a candle to.

DemolitionSquid
06-23-2009, 08:14 PM
When I said things were OKAY i was using it facetiously.

I believe Starcraft is perfect. I believe it's as perfect as an RTS video game with three races can be. I truly do believe that having the races balanced as they are allows for the meta game to constantly shift (thanks to what you two refer to as map "dependancy", but what I call map "diversity".)

I believe that map evolution should evolve the "balance of power" at the very highest skill levels as it does so. It's a method that works. You know how I know it works?

Because Starcraft works. On a level no other game has ever held a candle to.

And we believe that maps should be a compliment, not the final factor.

vIsitor
06-23-2009, 09:59 PM
I've strongly considered the shared Obelisk energy angle (hell, I think I was the first one to suggest in on Blizzforums) and have come to the conclusion that it creates as many problems as it solves. Not that I'm not fond of the idea, but I think an alternative solution should be explored for this particular problem.

Now, culling from all the ideas posted thus far, the best combination for properly nerfing Proton Charge is this:

A) Cap the number of Probes affected by Proton Charge, so as to limit the "exponential returns" conundrum that has DSquid's nethers in a tangle.

and

B) Slave the duration of the effect to shield strength (i.e. depletes x shield points/second and the Charge is removed when shields reach 0) so as to introduce a downside to constant spamming, as well as diminishing returns.


Now, I don't pretend that this is a perfect solution, and its probably not the best we can come up with. However, I think that this is the best that we've come up with thus far. Lets build from here.

ArcherofAiur
06-23-2009, 10:03 PM
DSquid's nethers in a tangle.


Just because DSquids nethers is in a tangle does not mean that exponential mining is a problem. All of macro is exponential in theory but is held down by other factors such as immediate threats (sure it would be nice to expand now but if i dont make more goons that guy will kill me), need to tech etc...

The real issue is competition between Proton Charge and the other two abilities.

vIsitor
06-23-2009, 10:57 PM
Just because DSquids nethers is in a tangle does not mean that exponential mining is a problem. All of macro is exponential in theory but is held down by other factors such as immediate threats (sure it would be nice to expand now but if i dont make more goons that guy will kill me), need to tech etc...

The real issue is competition between Proton Charge and the other two abilities.

Yes, yes. I know. Universal constants are the speed of light and Squid's bitchiness; mostly I stated it that way to placate him (albeit, in a rather snide manner).

You are, however, neglecting the reason why competition between the abilities is "needed" in the first place: to prevent the constant spamming of Proton Charge. In the suggested scenario, there would indeed be times where it would be prudent not to use the ability, which makes the need for that manner of tension less imperative.

That is not to say, however, that it wouldn't be nice to have said tension. I'm merely pointing out that you're going about the problem the wrong way, by attempting to shoe-horn in what is deemed "necessary" whilst ignoring the fundamentals as to why it is needed. There is more than one way to crack a walnut, as it were, and this problem is no different; it can be approached in more than one way. The important thing to remember is to ascertain what the problem is at a base level, and then determine which mechanic should be used to fix it (and not the other way around!).

MattII
06-23-2009, 11:50 PM
A) Cap the number of Probes affected by Proton Charge, so as to limit the "exponential returns" conundrum that has DSquid's nethers in a tangle.

Or make it cheap but single-target/slave the cost in to the number of Probes. This isn't as strictly hard a counter as limiting the number of Probes, but I've never really been fond of that type of hard counter.


B) Slave the duration of the effect to shield strength (i.e. depletes x shield points/second and the Charge is removed when shields reach 0) so as to introduce a downside to constant spamming, as well as diminishing returns

Make it a channelling ability, so the effect lasts as long as the Obelisk's energy.

I developed both these abilities a while back, but in the way that seems to be fairly typical, they were almost ignored (many of my original ideas tend to be, sometimes after a repeat post as well).

Nicol Bolas
06-24-2009, 01:14 AM
I believe Starcraft is perfect. I believe it's as perfect as an RTS video game with three races can be. I truly do believe that having the races balanced as they are allows for the meta game to constantly shift (thanks to what you two refer to as map "dependancy", but what I call map "diversity".)

If StarCraft is perfect, why are you interested in SC2 in any way, shape, or form? If SC1 is perfect, then every change SC2 makes must necessarily be moving away from that perfection (or, at best, being a lateral move). Why bother playing an imperfect game when you have perfection already?

And if there's such "diversity" in SC1 maps, where are all the maps that force you to 1-base for a while until you can move onto the map and actually claim some territory? Where are the maps with no choke point of any kind near your base? Where are the maps with two choke points into your base? And so on.

They don't exist because doing any of those things creates inherent imbalances. There are many map possibilities that SC1 cannot use without creating imbalances. This limits diversity, not creates it.

SaharaDrac
06-24-2009, 01:26 AM
If StarCraft is perfect, why are you interested in SC2 in any way, shape, or form? If SC1 is perfect, then every change SC2 makes must necessarily be moving away from that perfection (or, at best, being a lateral move). Why bother playing an imperfect game when you have perfection already?

And if there's such "diversity" in SC1 maps, where are all the maps that force you to 1-base for a while until you can move onto the map and actually claim some territory? Where are the maps with no choke point of any kind near your base? Where are the maps with two choke points into your base? And so on.

They don't exist because doing any of those things creates inherent imbalances. There are many map possibilities that SC1 cannot use without creating imbalances. This limits diversity, not creates it.


I said it was perfect in it's balance. It does NOT have perfect graphics. It does NOT have perfect online support. I want another perfect game. I've been playing this one for 10 years. Should I not want another perfect game?

Islands maps aren't fun. There are maps with two entrances.

It boils down to this: you and the squid fella are just spouting off at the mouth on subjects you have no hands-on experience with. I get the feeling that you guys are those people that only play ONE smash brothers stage, with no items on, because the chaos creates "imbalances". Your ideal Starcraft 2 map is an open field, with no terrain features, perfectly mirrored.

mr. peasant
06-24-2009, 04:51 AM
According to who? Zerglings die in droves. If there is any Zerg unit that's truely worth its cost, its the Hydralisk.

True, but they're also very, very cheap considering how much damage they can deal. Yeah, Hydralisks too.


Roach regen is powerful, but they do abysmal DPS. They are tanks, not powerhouses.

Precisely. They're fairly resilient and hard to kill. Therefore, balance-wise, you don't need as many as say, Stalkers, to harass the enemy and disrupt their economy.

DemolitionSquid
06-24-2009, 05:27 AM
It boils down to this: you and the squid fella are just spouting off at the mouth on subjects you have no hands-on experience with. I get the feeling that you guys are those people that only play ONE smash brothers stage, with no items on, because the chaos creates "imbalances". Your ideal Starcraft 2 map is an open field, with no terrain features, perfectly mirrored.

I have plenty of hands on with SC. I've been playing as long as you. But where you chose to delve into competitive play and become an elitist poser, I look at the game from a general, logical view. Its only when the logic and math doesn't add up that I cry foul, because it can be quantified.

And yeah, my ideal Starcraft 2 map is an open field, with few Terrain features, perfectly mirrored. Because it is only under those circumstances that the balance (or imbalance) is obvious. Its the same reason SSB Melee and Brawl are competitively played on flat surfaces - to give each side equal opportunity.


Precisely. They're fairly resilient and hard to kill. Therefore, balance-wise, you don't need as many as say, Stalkers, to harass the enemy and disrupt their economy.

But Stalkers also cost more, and are most effective using Blink when its upgraded, just like Roaches are more effective using Burrow once upgraded.

Norfindel
06-24-2009, 07:27 AM
It's not that simple. If one race needs more expansions, that needs to be compensated somehow, because that means more vulnerability (more so in SC2, with cliff-climbers), and expanding isn't free, either.

About Zerglings, they have huge damage output per cost. You can't have everything in the same unit, so they have not too much HP, and you need something to take damage for them. Roaches + Zerglings should do very well.

Capsblock
06-24-2009, 07:33 AM
1 Queen per hatchery , he had 2 in his base and 2 expansions in BR 3 so , 2+2 = 4 but he lost some didnt he?
just like the guy above me said , its rare that you win by spamming 1 unit , you scout and see what counter he is building and then you spam so that counter will practicly die , i mean if you see stalkers , go for Zerglings

ArcherofAiur
06-24-2009, 08:10 AM
Blizzard will never make the races exactly the same. Therefore, the maps will never be irrelivant.

See that is really what starcraft is all about. Balance through imbalances. If your looking for something else your not going to find it here. Nicol, Demo, I think you guys might want to try WC2. Oh wait bloodlust. darn.

warrior6
06-24-2009, 11:11 AM
Psi Storm sucks because there is no real reason not to do it every X seconds.

no its not on an interval. you may use psi storm 1 minute like 5 times, then not it use for like 10 minutes before having to using once. then not using it for like another 5 before casting 3 more. etc etc. proton charge is gonna be cast the moment energy allows you to. there is no real choice.

the results are also different. sometimes psi storm may kill a shit load of units. sometimes it might not. depending on the circumstances. 15 proton charged probes on the other hand will always give you the same amount of minerals. but 3 high templars may kill like 20 units or 5.

Nicol Bolas
06-24-2009, 12:28 PM
It does NOT have perfect graphics. It does NOT have perfect online support.

So what you want isn't SC2; it's SC1 with new graphics and netcode.


Islands maps aren't fun.

That's because the SC1 air combat model is broken. Island maps would be fun if air combat worked like it was supposed to.

You're making my point for me.


get the feeling that you guys are those people that only play ONE smash brothers stage, with no items on, because the chaos creates "imbalances". Your ideal Starcraft 2 map is an open field, with no terrain features, perfectly mirrored.

Wrong on both counts.

I don't have an ideal StarCraft 2 map. I just want many map possibilities to be available and viable, unlike what we have in SC1. I want there to be variations in natural expansions, numbers of main base entrances, size of those entrances, etc.

This is far from an open field with no terrain features. I have also spoken out against mirrored maps, as I would like to see them try to make a balanced, asymmetric map.

As for SSBB, I believe that the random factors of the game should be amortized by playing lots of games, rather than just turning them off. Random factors will be approximately even if you're playing 30 separate games with players. Proper competitive play for SSBB should involve playing something like a Proleague match, where you determine a list of stages, pick characters, and then fight with 4 stocks per game. And then do that as a best-of-3. You might even try Winner's League format, where the character who wins gets to move to the next game, but the losing team gets to select a character that may snipe that one.

Sure, this would make SSBB matches take 20-30 minutes or longer. But it'd play to SSBB's strengths, rather than trying to turn it into Street Fighter or something, where you try to master a single character. This emphasizes mastery of the game as a whole.

Pandonetho
06-24-2009, 12:42 PM
Psi Storm sucks because there is no real reason not to do it every X seconds.

Except psi storm takes actual important hand eye coordination to get the most kills out of one as possible.

medium
06-24-2009, 01:12 PM
The main issue I see here is that proton charge is too powerful because 1) it just does too much for as easy as it is to access or 2) there is never a reason not to use it (when the cooldown is up).

So I have an idea, you can nerf the bonus it gives to collection slightly. But also provide the obelisk with an ability that would likely be used in a match. Here is the set up: Protoss have the most expensive units, their units are very strong individually compared to single units from other races. It is likely then that the protoss will have fewer units on the battle field. Therefore if the protoss loses a unit it hurts them badly, more so than another race.

Therefore, give the Obelisk the ability to save units who have gotten themselves into a bad situation. Give the Obelisk an ability to recall units back to the obelisk, very similar to a scroll of town portal, but the ability is activated from a building, not a hero.

Hopefully no one else posted an idea like this, if so Im sorry to repeat, but Im not reading 21 pages of posts:-p

ArcherofAiur
06-24-2009, 02:53 PM
So I have an idea, you can nerf the bonus it gives to collection slightly.
Again nerfing an ability youve never played with... for all we know it could need to be buffed.


But also provide the obelisk with an ability that would likely be used in a match. Here is the set up: Protoss have the most expensive units, their units are very strong individually compared to single units from other races. It is likely then that the protoss will have fewer units on the battle field. Therefore if the protoss loses a unit it hurts them badly, more so than another race.

Therefore, give the Obelisk the ability to save units who have gotten themselves into a bad situation. Give the Obelisk an ability to recall units back to the obelisk, very similar to a scroll of town portal, but the ability is activated from a building, not a hero.

Hopefully no one else posted an idea like this, if so Im sorry to repeat, but Im not reading 21 pages of posts:-p

Already suggested but im glad we are thinking on the same wavelength.

medium
06-24-2009, 04:43 PM
Again nerfing an ability youve never played with... for all we know it could need to be buffed.


Point taken.



Already suggested but im glad we are thinking on the same wavelength.
I figured in 21 pages, someone had to have beaten me to it... especially since it was in wc3, its not really a new mechanic. I'll look back and see what the criticisms of the idea were when you brought it up.

I assume someone has also thought of letting you use Proton Charge on other units (not the probes) so that if would have to choose between needing it for an upcoming battle (to increase your attack or strengthen your shields or something) and using it on your probes?

ArcherofAiur
06-24-2009, 04:47 PM
I assume someone has also thought of letting you use Proton Charge on other units (not the probes) so that if would have to choose between needing it for an upcoming battle (to increase your attack or strengthen your shields or something) and using it on your probes?


Well that was the idea I proposed in the macro contest but i think ive since reconsidered it. Spells in Starcraft tend to do one thing and do it well. A mining spell should give you minerals. If we want to give players other routes to take than just minerals then we need to make the competing spells stronger.

Recall is a great canidate. What are your thoughts on whether it should be single or multiple targets?

medium
06-24-2009, 04:51 PM
Well that was the idea I proposed in the macro contest but i think ive since reconsidered it. Spells in Starcraft tend to do one thing and do it well. A mining spell should give you minerals. If we want to give players other routes to take than just minerals then we need to make the competing spells stronger.

Recall is a great canidate. What are your thoughts on whether it should be single or multiple targets?

I would think multiple targets but a pretty small radius, ie something that would have saved 4 or 5 (if he grouped them up) of David Kim's Stalker's that he just threw away to some zerglings in BR3. At the same time if you didnt make a conscience decision to bunch up before recall, maybe you would only get away with 1 or 2.

Caliban113
06-25-2009, 09:01 PM
How about this? and sorry if it's been suggested - 22 pages is quite a bit :)

I was thinking either make the Obelisk moveable, or just make it a unit with the same cost and abilities; the old 'Stasis Orb' model might work for this purpose (?) - the unit would inherit the Obelisk's current abilities.

However, besides the Probe collection mechanic, allow PC to be used on other stuctures. (one at a time - per charge)

- Use it to briefly speed up the warp-in/construction of a new building.
- use it on existing structures to speed up unit prodution for that building.

The boost would would only last as long as the duration of the charge. While you would still have to remember to continually activate the charge - the player now has to choose where the charge is best used.

I was thinking of only allowing its abilities within pylon power as a limitation. (to help limit its functions while outside of a base.) However, maybe something else may work better.

ArcherofAiur
06-25-2009, 09:11 PM
How about this? and sorry if it's been suggested - 22 pages is quite a bit :)

I was thinking either make the Obelisk moveable, or just make it a unit with the same cost and abilities; the old 'Stasis Orb' model might work for this purpose (?) - the unit would inherit the Obelisk's current abilities.



Hmmmm. Interesting. Its similar to the queen but perhaps we could find some way to differentiate the two. Critics?



However, besides the Probe collection mechanic, allow PC to be used on other stuctures. (one at a time - per charge)

- Use it to briefly speed up the warp-in/construction of a new building.
- use it on existing structures to speed up unit prodution for that building.

The boost would would only last as long as the duration of the charge. While you would still have to remember to continually activate the charge - the player now has to choose where the charge is best used.

I was thinking of only allowing its abilities within pylon power as a limitation. (to help limit its functions while outside of a base.) However, maybe something else may work better.
We discussed this on the other page but ill repeat it. Most abilities in Starcraft do one thing and do it good. You dont see allot of artificial limitations or ancillary unrelated uses.


(BTW with 22 pages this thread has offically entered epic territory)