• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 14:29
CEST 20:29
KST 03:29
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Ro4 Preview: Storied Rivals6Code S RO12 Preview: Maru, Trigger, Rogue, NightMare12Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, sOs, Reynor, Solar15[ASL19] Ro8 Preview: Unyielding3Official Ladder Map Pool Update (April 28, 2025)17
Community News
Dark to begin military service on May 13th (2025)7Weekly Cups (May 5-11): New 2v2 Champs1Maru & Rogue GSL RO12 interviews: "I think the pressure really got to [trigger]"5Code S Season 1 - Maru & Rogue advance to RO80Code S Season 1 - Cure & Reynor advance to RO84
StarCraft 2
General
Map Pool Suggestion: Throwback ERA Dark to begin military service on May 13th (2025) How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? I hope balance council is prepping final balance 2024/25 Off-Season Roster Moves
Tourneys
[GSL 2025] Code S:Season 1 - RO12 - Group B Monday Nights Weeklies Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament [GSL 2025] Code S:Season 1 - RO12 - Group A $1,250 WardiTV May [May 6th-May 18th]
Strategy
[G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 473 Cold is the Void Mutation # 472 Dead Heat Mutation # 471 Delivery Guaranteed Mutation # 470 Certain Demise
Brood War
General
BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Ro4 Preview: Storied Rivals Battlenet Game Lobby Simulator Twitch StarCraft Holiday Bash (UMS) Artosis vs Ogre Zerg [The Legend Continues]
Tourneys
[ASL19] Semifinal A BSL Nation Wars 2 - Grand Finals - Saturday 21:00 [ASL19] Ro8 Day 4 [USBL Spring 2025] Groups cast
Strategy
[G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player Creating a full chart of Zerg builds [G] Mineral Boosting
Other Games
General Games
What do you want from future RTS games? Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Grand Theft Auto VI Battle Aces/David Kim RTS Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread TL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy TL Mafia: Generative Agents Showdown Survivor II: The Amazon
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread UK Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Canadian Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [Books] Wool by Hugh Howey Surprisingly good films/Hidden Gems
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NHL Playoffs 2024 NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Cleaning My Mechanical Keyboard How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard?
TL Community
The Automated Ban List TL.net Ten Commandments
Blogs
Why 5v5 Games Keep Us Hooked…
TrAiDoS
Info SLEgma_12
SLEgma_12
SECOND COMMING
XenOsky
WombaT’s Old BW Terran Theme …
WombaT
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
BW PvZ Balance hypothetic…
Vasoline73
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 10928 users

[SC2B] A Shot In The Dark

Forum Index > News
123 CommentsPost a Reply
Normal

[SC2B] A Shot In The Dark

Text byLiquid`Nazgul
March 9th, 2010 14:14 GMT

It’s been nearly 3 weeks since I played my first game on battle.net and lots of things have happened since. Blizzard came out with three patches and strategies were evolving on a daily basis. In the first week of ladder the matchmaking seemed intent on finding opponents quickly rather than appropriately and high platinums were often matched up with players of lower rankings resulting in a lot of +2 and -30 games with not too much to learn from. In one of the patches, I don’t exactly know which one since I haven’t seen Blizzard make a statement about this at all, it seemed things changed and the search now often takes up to a few minutes. But when it’s done it will have found an opponent for you around your own level. I can’t stress enough how important this is for testing as tons of people are laddering to improve nowhere is the balance tested better than at the highest levels.

Before Garimto even made a blog post, I was sitting on MSN when Smuft brought up the possibility of a warp-gate strategy he was using. We brainstormed a little bit and it didn’t take long before people were dying to it left and right at the Platinum ranks. Some took their losses better than others but in the end it should be your goal to find strategies that win you the game. That should be your goal when playing and it should be your goal when Beta testing so that in their game-statistics Blizzard can find what is being used, what works and what doesn’t work.

Auto-proxy
I’ll use this opportunity to address a recent PvP trend. As most of you following the Beta have noticed a warp-gate rush has been popularized and is seemingly unstoppable. It was after the post about Garimto’s blog and the recent PlayXP and Zotac tournaments that it really became the norm. Before this some people used it effectively but for the most part people didn’t know about it. Seeing it in high level play at these tournaments and be so successful quickly spread the strategy like a virus throughout the ladder. You can’t find a game at Platinum anymore where the game doesn’t revolve around warp-gate rushing. There is an instant-win counter to it and that’s proxy gating. This leads to some hilarious games where both guys will be proxy gating trying to out-micro each other in the middle of the map. I’m having fun with the way PvP is right now because short as it may be, as the strategy is still new it feels very dynamic, high pressure and you absolutely cannot make mistakes. At the same time it is clear that this is no way for PvP to be long-term. No one wants to solely be proxy gating and warp-gate rushing for the rest of their SC careers.

[image loading]

Two Protoss engage in the ancient ritual of here-we-go-round-the-mulberry-bush.

So far it seems no counter has been found that allows you to tech without dying. Most likely this will never be found either. If you are thinking “I wish these guys would just stfu and look for counters instead of complaining” you are in the wrong newspost. I won’t say it’s impossible to counter properly because SC is still a dynamic game and it would be foolish to think I have gotten to the bottom of it. However the time-span and unit combination at which this strategy is happening is so early in the game that your options are limited. Most good players now have a solid understanding of the earliest moments in the game and no one has been able to come up with a realistic counter that is not proxy gating. If Blizzard takes these games and opinions as a reason to change something they really need to pull something new out of their wizard hat, as warp-gates are so important for Protoss in the other matchups that you can’t just take them out of the game or drastically change something about their tech-route and timing. It might be Blizzard have to come up with some ‘dumb’ rule that allows them to take care of this problem for PvP but leave the other matchups the way they want them to be. Throughout the many slightly-different topics on this issue there have been many solutions that might work.

1) When two enemy pylon fields meet the warp function ceases to work.
2) The further away from the Nexus the longer your warp-in takes.
3) Warp-gates higher in tech.

I probably missed a few, but these stuck out more than others. In the first situation whenever you build a pylon in someone’s base he can just build one next to it; cancelling the warp-in while the pylon of the defender completes. This would have little implications for the matchup as a whole since you can still warp-in stuff mid-game to almost any spot on the map. If anything the slight implication of building a pylon next to your opponents somewhere in the middle of the game sounds like strategic fun to me.

The second one speaks for itself. It would have a slight implication for other matchups as your units get to places to defend slower, however if it’s say a max of 10 seconds delay to do it all the way in your opponents base, which is huge for a rush, it would be somewhere between 0-10 for most mid-game locations. It is still a large advantage compared to actually walking to the spot.

The last one feels like it is going to have implications for all the matchups throughout. It is more risky and would actually in itself possibly need weeks for a thorough test.

Although this post was originally about these next two issues, the proxy gate discussion just had to be brought up, especially in light of the recent PvPs I played. Anyway, let's jump right in and look at the main focus of this post - the problem with fighting units auto-targeting workers in battle, and the fact that with vision units shoot up a choke with 100% damage.

In every great RTS you need to have a balance between economy, rushing and teching. We all know this and it’s nothing new. Currently the way it is in SC2 is that because your high ground is barely an advantage, and your workers get slaughtered when defending (except for scvs somewhat because they’re mighty strong), games are often more about massing than teching.

Zen and the Art of Defense
The defenders advantage exists so that a battle (both in-game and mind) between rushing and teching is created with both routes being optional. Currently the defenders advantage is not playing a big enough role. Once Zerglings or Zealots get into your base you're doomed and no amount of workers will help you overcome the numbers. People need to be able to fight for their tech and economic advantages with defense, while others try to do damage to an opponent’s economy to offset the initial investment of their rush. Both of these options need to be viable in order to enlarge the creative spectrum of the game.

[image loading]

Often this...

The workers being auto-target while attacking will have you end up with very few of them if you don’t match his combat units in numbers when fighting. Basically if units get into your base you’re screwed, which is also part of the reason why the warp-gate rush is so strong. They will eat your peons alive and leave nothing behind.

[image loading]

Results in this.

I’m trying to think of an advantage of workers becoming auto-targets in battle. The only thing it does is quickly sway a game in the favor of those entering the opponent’s base. It doesn’t add anything to the game except making mass/rushing your opponent more viable and end games more quickly where you can hold off attacks in other games. By doing this the balance between defense and offense feels disturbed and moves the game towards the favor of the offensive player in matchups where a rush might get you into your opponents main. To counter this you need units; which in turn leads to a game that promotes early and mid-game massing over strategy. I’ve asked around among top players for their opinion on this and so far I haven’t found a single player who was in favor of keeping this auto-targeting of workers in the game. It could be we are all nostalgic and need to look at SC2 as if it’s a new game as some of you will no doubt yell in this thread, or it could be that there is actually a valid point to be made.

A Moral Highground
The other one is doing damage to high ground as long as you have vision. If you are rushing an opponent you will obviously have vision of his high ground and do 100% damage. This negates the effect you want the chokes to have. On the other hand if you have a mass of units dropped on your cliff: tanks, marines, maybe a few vikings, it is very hard to get vision of this. If you can't see units that are firing at you, how do you counter? Let's look at a game from the PlayXP invitational between hyo and kkong. With the Colossus killed, all that stands in the way of complete cliff domination is one scan and obs snipe. In the game itself it never happens, but it's easily foreseeable in future TvP cliff drops.

[image loading]

Suddenly, the entire Protoss army is dependant on an obs and a colossus.

With 100% hits on vision, the games get pushed to extremes; chokes become less of a factor when rushing (it's not hard to get vision of a choke early game) and cliffs become immensely strong. Basically, it's all or nothing, and this becomes really hard to balance, especially when it comes to maps. If cliffs on LT were tough in Broodwar, in SC2, they're golden ground - get there, setup and you literally cant be budged.

So, what am I saying? Both rushing, attacking and cliff drops need to be viable, but tech, defending and actually maintaining your expansion need to be viable as well so it becomes a battle of who does what better and smarter. A solution to this could be just have units do X% less damage or miss X% of the time when shooting up the high-ground and let units that are being fired at from a cliff have vision of the unit that is hitting it. These simple fixes will go a long way in making cliffs and chokes serve their purpose better and place more emphasis on good reaction time, positioning and micro. In fact, just so we're clear about the details, here's a TL stats nerd with a number crunch.

Miss Chance and Damage Reduction
By Daigomi

There's been a lot of debate about whether miss chance or damage reduction should be used to improve the defender's advantage. Many people have said that they work out the same way, and as such it doesn't really matter. This is not exactly true, as the following example shows:

Scenario 1: A tank does 35 damage a shot, marines have 40hp.

Normal: Two shots kill a marine.

50% miss: Four shots kill a marine (on average).
50% less damage: Three shots kill a marine (17.5 * 3 = 52.5).

33% miss: Three shots kill a marine (on average).
33% less damage: Two shots kill a marine (23 * 2 = 46).

Thus, in this scenario it takes fewer shots to kill the unit than the damage reduction would imply.

Damage thus scales linearly with miss (if units hit half the time, they will need to hit twice as often) while damage does not scale linearly with damage reduction (if units hit for half as much, they will not need to hit twice as often). This does not mean that one system is inherently better than the other one. What it does mean, however, is that it is easier to balance misses than it is to balance damage reduction.

Try it out, Blizzard!
Having played this game for a few weeks, I strongly believe that fixing these three things will greatly improve the reach and longevity of the game. Of course, you don't just need to take my word for it - read TL, read other sites, and see what top players have to say. Based on the many, many discussions I have had over the past few weeks, 9/10 dentists agree - we need solutions for these problems.

So, over to you, Blizzard. This is the Beta afterall, so why not just change it and see if it improves the quality of the game? If it doesn’t you can always go back to the way it was, but I think you will see it does.


Resources
- Liquid`Nazgul PvP replay pack



This post was made by the Team Liquid Starcraft 2 Coverage Team. For more of TL's coverage, please visit the Team Liquid Starcraft 2 Beta Page.
Facebook Twitter Reddit
Administrator
ZenDeX
Profile Blog Joined May 2008
Philippines2916 Posts
March 09 2010 14:22 GMT
#2
I hope the next patch addresses all of these.
1a2a3aPro
Profile Joined July 2009
Canada227 Posts
March 09 2010 14:23 GMT
#3
If I new I could have gotten first reply, I wouldn't have read it first lol.

Can't really comment, don't have a beta key.
leftykill
Profile Joined October 2009
United States120 Posts
March 09 2010 14:26 GMT
#4
great read
diehilde
Profile Joined September 2008
Germany1596 Posts
March 09 2010 14:28 GMT
#5
ive seen plenty of good players abusing the auto target worker mechanic in fights by bringing a cpl of scvs in big fights and abusing the fact that the ai targets workers with a-click. I think it not only takes away the defenders advantage, but it can also be used offensively to an extent. Then again, I agree with the cliff mechanics. What really is key imo though is bnet delay, muta stacking, right click functionality and a way to move your units in formation, forcing them to NOT clump like they always do.
Savior: "I will cheat everyone again in SC2!" - SCII Beta Tester
Skeggaba
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
Korea (South)1556 Posts
March 09 2010 14:29 GMT
#6
Great post - i have no idea what you are talking about except the warp pylon stuff (got rushed as zerg and had NO trouble fending it off, but thats another story) - still trying to figure the game out
Bisu[about JD]=I was scared (laughs). The force emanating from his facial expression was so manly that I was even a little jealous.
Salteador Neo
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Andorra5591 Posts
March 09 2010 14:31 GMT
#7
On March 09 2010 23:22 lolaloc wrote:
I hope the next patch addresses all of these.


This, and great read :D
Revolutionist fan
pshych0
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
274 Posts
March 09 2010 14:34 GMT
#8
great read, and i think the chance to miss when shooting uphill is really needed. It's been here in sc1 and war3, why exactly have they removed it in SC2?
shit happens
s.a.y
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
Croatia3840 Posts
March 09 2010 14:52 GMT
#9
can they really fix the cliff thing that easy?

i can understand they can change priority of attacking units, but nerfing up the cliff damage sounds like a huge edit in the game itself.
I am not good with quotes
Bright]
Profile Joined March 2010
United States118 Posts
March 09 2010 14:54 GMT
#10
Great critique. I don't have the beta, but things like these definitely need to be discussed!

I wish I could submit this post to Blizzard in it's entirety! (I'm sure you have though!)
Track 1
Niten
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States598 Posts
March 09 2010 15:04 GMT
#11
Amazing read. This kind of comprehensive summary with suggestions (not bashing) is why I love TL!
Korra: "Ok, I know that I'm not good at emotions, but that's what Tenzin's gonna teach me, right? He's gonna teach me to be happy and gentle and spiritual, and the rest of that bullsh**t."
Yammiez
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
Canada186 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 15:10:19
March 09 2010 15:09 GMT
#12
I'm still in the new-er golden league where the PvP isn't yet tainted with the crazy warp gate rush. I would pull strategies i remember from watching the streams from TL to go stalkers then colossus and what not, but as fun as this warp gate strat is, it'll sure get boring in a couple of days. PvP is he new ZvZ? Also. Amazing Read! I love TL for stuff like this.
Smash fear, learn anything; except for spiders
UbiNax
Profile Joined February 2010
Denmark381 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 15:16:22
March 09 2010 15:14 GMT
#13
i agree with most of the stuff, but i honestly dont know about the Cliff/LOS, i think its great that you need visibility to hit highgound,
in WC3 they have both Miss and LOS when you hit uphill, and i love it! hehe

but who knows i might change my mind when i get a key " if i get one hehe "
luckybeni2
Profile Joined October 2008
Germany1065 Posts
March 09 2010 15:14 GMT
#14
On March 09 2010 23:29 Skeggaba wrote:
Great post - i have no idea what you are talking about except the warp pylon stuff (got rushed as zerg and had NO trouble fending it off, but thats another story) - still trying to figure the game out

The problem of the warp rush is in the matchup pvp
edahl
Profile Joined February 2008
Norway483 Posts
March 09 2010 15:17 GMT
#15
Schweet. I agree with every point.
OminouS
Profile Joined February 2010
Sweden1343 Posts
March 09 2010 15:20 GMT
#16
Really good post. I've been talking to some of my friends and I whined 100 times about the non existing miss chance, the PvP and the autotargeting workers.

This post covered 3 of the 4 major concerns I have about the game.
On the 6th day JF made Reavers and on the 7th day JF put his opponent to rest
asdfTT123
Profile Blog Joined June 2009
United States989 Posts
March 09 2010 15:24 GMT
#17
Good read. As a P player, I could not agree any more with any of these points.

The one that rages me the most is the advantage a T can have when attacking from a cliff (i.e. the nat at LT and Kulas) and being able to do absolutely nothing about it. I've played a few inferior T players who simply massed tanks and MMM while turtling and then coming out with a huge army, only to be dropped on my cliff that ended up raping my econ or my entire army if it got to close.

I also love the concept of Warp Gates but it needs to be fixed for the sake of PvP.
n.Die_Jaedong <3
hugman
Profile Joined June 2009
Sweden4644 Posts
March 09 2010 15:30 GMT
#18
I agree that there probably isn't a counter to the early scout proxy pylon warp gate rush. It circumvents all the disadvantages you'd normally associate with getting very early units into your opponent's base.

There are going to be both real and preceived balance issues in the beta and while it's noble to refuse calling things imbalanced and trying to find a counter to everything we need to accept that there can mechanics in the game that simply aren't balanced.
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24631 Posts
March 09 2010 15:34 GMT
#19
Can you explain how 50% miss means 4 hits to kill the marine?
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
Leon-bw
Profile Joined November 2006
France44 Posts
March 09 2010 15:38 GMT
#20
I agree with most of the points though I would argue about two points:

1) On Auto-target on miners, in my opinion, it kinda compensates the improved AI and overall movement capability of miners which also benefit from auto-surround without any effort in terms of micro-management.
Bringin back the same flawed AI from BW for unit targeting AND keeping the improved AI for movement / surround will tip the balance the other way with a much stronger defense to the point where attacking a base may not be viable without having already won a major battle or a significant advantage (or just postpone the initial skirmish around a base until miners are not relevant anymore due to splash or size of army) which I think is just as bad as giving advantage to the agressor

2) On vision over choke, I think this is just a matter of expressing your opinion which may be slightly adjusted. By reading the article it looks as if having no penalty due to height for choke attack removes the value of a choke. Well to be exact, choke still have the same value and there are choke without any height difference which also bring an advantage just because they provide opportunities for optimal unit placement against disorganised unit placement. That alone is enough of an advantage in my opinion in terms of defensive (or containing which may be considered aggressive) measures

Both ideas contribute to the fact that I think it is still too early to say that rush / massing early game is too strong and therefore defensive measures should be more powerful. The defensor still has an advantage thanks to his miners, to his choke (most of the time) and to its shorter rally time.

Sure the game may be broken for PvP but major changes around defense / offense should not be made based on this only set-up (which I'm sure was not your intention anyway)

Final word will be on your conclusion which is "test it and see how it works", I really can't be more in line with you, theorycraft is nice, experience is better
UbiNax
Profile Joined February 2010
Denmark381 Posts
March 09 2010 15:41 GMT
#21
On March 10 2010 00:34 micronesia wrote:
Can you explain how 50% miss means 4 hits to kill the marine?


it says " on average " so really just in theory, in reality its about luck O.o
ckjy
Profile Joined March 2010
United States12 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 16:00:41
March 09 2010 15:44 GMT
#22
When balancing, you can't just look at averages - you have to look at the distribution as well. With a 50% hit chance, it is accurate to say that it takes an average of 4 shots to kill the marine. But this is an incomplete statement. It is also true that 50% of the time, three or fewer shots will be required, and 25% of the time, 2 shots is all that is needed. So, it's important to consider that 25% of the time, a 50% hit rate will result in a faster marine kill, than simply reducing damage by 50%.

Now suppose we upgrade the tank's weapons. If we assumed a level 3 upgrade of +6 to the tank's damage against marines, then the math changes substantially. A 50% miss rate will result in a dead marine with two or fewer volleys 75% of the time, with only one volley required 50% of the time. This is in contrast to a 50% damage reduction, which will always require two shots.

Let's take it one step further, and upgrade the marine's armor to +1. Now we have a complicated situation involving damage reduction. Should the damage bonus from the upgrade be applied before, or after the fog-of-war damage reduction of 50%? If it is applied before (so damage taken is [(35+6)*50% - 1]), then three shots are required to kill the marine. If it is applied after (so damage taken is [(35 * 50%) + 6 - 1], then only two shots are required. If there is no damage reduction and only a 50% miss chance, the marine will still die with two or fewer volleys 75% of the time.

The difference is drastic, when you consider going from 2 to 3 volleys equates to taking 50% longer to kill a unit.

The difficulty of balancing a game goes far beyond deciding whether a number should be calculated one way or the other - it involves taking into account every possible way the battle can play out, and weighing every single variable against each other in a similar fashion.
0neder
Profile Joined July 2009
United States3733 Posts
March 09 2010 15:44 GMT
#23
How about moving the warp gate mechanic a little later in the tech tree? Maybe having it at the twilight council would give some more interesting tension to between robotics heavy and gateway heavy strategies.
Wintermute
Profile Joined March 2010
United States427 Posts
March 09 2010 15:46 GMT
#24
On March 10 2010 00:34 micronesia wrote:
Can you explain how 50% miss means 4 hits to kill the marine?


It doesn't take 4 hits, it takes (on average) 4 shots. Sometimes the first two shots will hit, and sometimes it will take 8 shots, but on average, 4 shots, because you need to hit twice and you have a 50% chance each shot.
Don't let me say this, but you're no worse than me; it's crazy.
theSAiNT
Profile Joined July 2009
United States726 Posts
March 09 2010 15:50 GMT
#25
Blizzard might or might not see this post. Given that the beta is for such feedback (whether they choose to follow it or not), you should copy this on to the official beta forums.
Crunchums
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
United States11143 Posts
March 09 2010 15:51 GMT
#26
imo make warp gate research require a twilight council

your analysis of %miss increasing shots required to kill is oversimplified. hit miss hit miss is just as likely as miss hit miss hit but the first only requires 3 whereas the second needs 4
brood war for life, brood war forever
ckjy
Profile Joined March 2010
United States12 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 15:55:17
March 09 2010 15:52 GMT
#27
On March 10 2010 00:41 UbiNax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 10 2010 00:34 micronesia wrote:
Can you explain how 50% miss means 4 hits to kill the marine?


it says " on average " so really just in theory, in reality its about luck O.o


It takes two successful hits to kill the marine, so if it takes n volleys to kill the marine, the last volley must have been a hit, there must have been a hit in the first (n-1) volleys, and there were a total of (n-2) misses.

Here's a table of all the possibilities, and the chance of it happening (death in n volleys).

Shots Needed..Percent Chance
2......................25.0%
3......................25.0%
4......................18.8%
5......................12.5%
6......................7.8%
7......................4.7%
8......................2.7%
9......................1.6%
10 or more.......2.0%

The average number of shots needed is equal to the probability of each possible outcome multiplied by the number of shots that were needed (2 * 25% + 3 * 25% + 4 * 18.8% + ... = 4).

A shortcut to this calculation is (shots required) / (hit chance), which works out to be (2 / .5), or 4 shots.
intrigue
Profile Blog Joined November 2005
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
March 09 2010 15:57 GMT
#28
nice post naz
Moderatorhttps://soundcloud.com/castlesmusic/sets/oak
Hrrrrm
Profile Joined March 2010
United States2081 Posts
March 09 2010 16:00 GMT
#29
I agree on everything except the cliff change/LOS issue. Luck and randomness was taken away from the high ground/low ground battles with this new implementation. I enjoy it because no longer do you have to have an overwhelming force to overcome the disadvantage the miss chance garnered. Instead you just need vision which is a huge improvement. If the person on high ground can remove all your options observer/phoenix/colossus/zealots charging up(as Toss) to provide you vision, you deserve to lose. People complained about needing observers/vision to deal with lurkers and mines as Toss for a long time but, they got use to it. The same can be said for this new high ground mechanic.

I think using the cliffs on LT and Kulas as an example of this mechanic needing a change is misplaced. These are more map decisions that can be changed.
alot = a lot (TWO WORDS)
Maceifer
Profile Joined February 2010
Germany11 Posts
March 09 2010 16:00 GMT
#30
Well, since this game has no elements of chance besides spawn locations, can we just get over the whole miss chance idea? Adding chance to a system that was designed to eliminate chance so that the game is determined only by decisions and not dicerolling appears kind of backwards..
If brute force does not solve your problem, you are not using enough...
Wintermute
Profile Joined March 2010
United States427 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 16:02:18
March 09 2010 16:00 GMT
#31
On March 10 2010 00:44 ckjy wrote:
The math for the average number of shots required to kill a marine is incorrect.

The expected (average) number of shots required to kill the marine with no damage reduction is (2 / hit rate), so with a 33% hit rate, it will take an average of 6 shots.



The math says 50% hit rate, not 33%, so it is correct.


Now suppose we upgrade the tank's weapons. If we assumed a level 3 upgrade of +6 to the tank's damage against marines, then the math changes substantially. A 50% miss rate will result in a dead marine with two or fewer volleys 75% of the time, with only one volley required 50% of the time. This is in contrast to a 50% damage reduction, which will always require two shots.


With upgrades, a marine will die every shot. 50% miss rate will result in an average of 2 shots per kill. Thus, 50% miss rate always results in causing units on high ground to have (on average) twice as much staying power.


Let's take it one step further, and upgrade the marine's armor to +1. Now we have a complicated situation involving damage reduction. Should the damage bonus from the upgrade be applied before, or after the fog-of-war damage reduction of 50%? If it is applied before (so damage taken is [(35+6)*50% - 1]), then three shots are required to kill the marine. If it is applied after (so damage taken is [(35 * 50%) + 6 - 1], then only two shots are required. If there is no damage reduction and only a 50% miss chance, the marine will still die with two or fewer volleys 75% of the time.

The difference is drastic, when you consider going from 2 to 3 volleys equates to taking 50% longer to kill a unit.


This is why miss chance is suggested instead of damage reduction, because it always gives the same effective advantage, vs damage reduction, which will depend on how much overkill a unit normally would do to another.


Don't let me say this, but you're no worse than me; it's crazy.
lossofmercy
Profile Joined March 2010
United States29 Posts
March 09 2010 16:03 GMT
#32
I am in favor of pushing warp gate techs later (someone mentioned twilight council) and balancing the units around that (buff stalker, build time for gateway is reduced). Every game has warpgates, it just makes things too homogeneous. There is never a reason to not do it.

Also, warping in through a pylon just seems like a late-game ability.

And it is the beta after all. Balance can be fixed in patches as we find out stuff. Right now, Blizzard should be looking for bugs and finding the better build, which means they can change the tech tree.
KOFgokuon
Profile Blog Joined August 2004
United States14892 Posts
March 09 2010 16:13 GMT
#33
thx naz
3nickma
Profile Joined November 2007
Denmark1510 Posts
March 09 2010 16:13 GMT
#34
On March 09 2010 23:28 damenmofa wrote:
ive seen plenty of good players abusing the auto target worker mechanic in fights by bringing a cpl of scvs in big fights and abusing the fact that the ai targets workers with a-click. I think it not only takes away the defenders advantage, but it can also be used offensively to an extent. Then again, I agree with the cliff mechanics. What really is key imo though is bnet delay, muta stacking, right click functionality and a way to move your units in formation, forcing them to NOT clump like they always do.


Lol I didn't know your offensive units would auto-target workers instead of the opposing forces when A-moving? That's acutually a pretty big deal but ofc your scenario also gives a new possibility. Bit at least nice to know.
L E E J A E D O N G ! <3
diehilde
Profile Joined September 2008
Germany1596 Posts
March 09 2010 16:27 GMT
#35
On March 10 2010 01:13 3nickma wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 09 2010 23:28 damenmofa wrote:
ive seen plenty of good players abusing the auto target worker mechanic in fights by bringing a cpl of scvs in big fights and abusing the fact that the ai targets workers with a-click. I think it not only takes away the defenders advantage, but it can also be used offensively to an extent. Then again, I agree with the cliff mechanics. What really is key imo though is bnet delay, muta stacking, right click functionality and a way to move your units in formation, forcing them to NOT clump like they always do.


Lol I didn't know your offensive units would auto-target workers instead of the opposing forces when A-moving? That's acutually a pretty big deal but ofc your scenario also gives a new possibility. Bit at least nice to know.

yeah its quite frustrating because this is one of the few points in the game where ur units actually feel dumber in sc2 than in sc1. I wanna tear my hair out when I attack with massive roaches against his mmm ball and he has like 10 scvs in front and the roaches waste their attacks against the scvs while the marines/marauders happily shoot them down without being touched.
Savior: "I will cheat everyone again in SC2!" - SCII Beta Tester
onmach
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1241 Posts
March 09 2010 16:28 GMT
#36
I still say that reducing the range of units below a cliff or reducing their fire rate is a better solution to the high ground issue than damage reduction or miss chance. No randomness, no change in number of hits required to kill.
Mystlord *
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States10264 Posts
March 09 2010 16:35 GMT
#37
Nice post. We'll just see what remedies Blizzard takes (if they make any at all!). The PvP issue is certainly the worst right now. It really needs to be fixed ;/.

The (non-existent) cliff mechanic is also troubling. It takes away an element of realism from the game.
It is impossible to be a citizen if you don't make an effort to understand the most basic activities of your government. It is very difficult to thrive in an increasingly competitive world if you're a nation of doods.
phyvo
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States5635 Posts
March 09 2010 16:40 GMT
#38
I am disappointed that someone's idea to have -1 range when attacking high ground idea was not mentioned in the main article. Sure it's not traditional but it's a third option that could be really really effective, the thought should at least be entertained.
"BE A MANGO TO SLEEP LIKE A SNORING TIGER" - Monte
hugman
Profile Joined June 2009
Sweden4644 Posts
March 09 2010 16:41 GMT
#39
On March 10 2010 01:35 Mystlord wrote:The (non-existent) cliff mechanic is also troubling. It takes away an element of realism from the game.


Tell me you're joking!
UnderWorld_Dream
Profile Joined September 2009
Canada219 Posts
March 09 2010 16:48 GMT
#40
I can't believe they changed they way cliff gives an advantage from BW. I mean, high ground has always been part of the dynamic of the game. And the game was so successful, why changing this.

Cliffs should be just as it is in bw, you get sight on higher grounds only when they shot at you. After all, when a marine is gunning you, how can you not see him if he sees you, thats totally dump. You are still less likely to fight from the bottom if you have chances to miss and thus you will try to avoid these situations anyways.

I say just put cliff rules like in was in bw. (i know its a different game, I can still point out it was better before)
Kamstrup
Profile Joined February 2010
Denmark5 Posts
March 09 2010 17:04 GMT
#41
Are you posting thins like this on the Beta forums aswell ?
There is no failure, only feedback
Cpt.beefy
Profile Blog Joined September 2006
Ireland799 Posts
March 09 2010 17:06 GMT
#42
good post man, amazing how this never came up in the 3 years of development.

Or maybe the changes are so new that it was never viable.

One things for sure blizzard need to step up and no let SC2 die in beta.
Our Beloved Geoff "inControl" Robinson.
andiCR
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
Costa Rica2273 Posts
March 09 2010 17:36 GMT
#43
awesome post nazgul, thanks for taking the time to do this. I agree 100%
Nightmare1795 wrote: I played a guy in bronze who said he was Japanese. That was the only game I ever dropped a nuke, which was purely coincidental.
Chi
Profile Joined December 2009
Norway27 Posts
March 09 2010 17:43 GMT
#44
Great read, i really want this game to be around for as long as bw has and for that to happen it needs to fix some of these issues so we have enough viable strategies too choose from. Having defenders advantage and positional advantages (high ground for instance) to construct builds around is a crucial part. Having the aggressive build always be favored will only end in a shorter lifespan for the game. Hope blizzard will read this and take it to heart. Last but not least vengeance will be mine next time we meet in a ladder match
LuDwig-
Profile Blog Joined February 2007
Italy1143 Posts
March 09 2010 17:49 GMT
#45
i really enjoy tjis post for 2 motives:
1)criticize with mind and not only say "omg this is so hot"
2)rep pack for our no beta users
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=120015&currentpage=98<--Search the HotBid's Post
Maceifer
Profile Joined February 2010
Germany11 Posts
March 09 2010 17:53 GMT
#46
On March 10 2010 01:35 Mystlord wrote:
The (non-existent) cliff mechanic is also troubling. It takes away an element of realism from the game.


Yes, a game where you battle aliens with mechs that are larger than the factory they come out of definately needs realism.

by MaDTeMpLaR: I say just put cliff rules like in was in bw. (i know its a different game, I can still point out it was better before)


Was it? I know I'm sounding like a broken record here but it was random. You could overcome the defender's advantage by sheer luck or lose a superior army to bad beats.

Let's face it, cliff miss chance will never come back because luck should not decide if your unit takes even one point of damage more or less.
Reduced range appears to be a good solution so does flat damage reduction.
If brute force does not solve your problem, you are not using enough...
Jugan
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States1566 Posts
March 09 2010 17:56 GMT
#47
Great read, it's a little concerning that PvP is looking to be more "degenerate" than ZvZ in SC1. I wish I could get a beta key to try it out

Thanks for keeping us informed!
Even a Savior couldn't fix all problems. www.twitch.tv/xJugan
MapleLeafSirup
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany950 Posts
March 09 2010 18:00 GMT
#48
Great work Nazgul, but you better post that in a blizzard forum than on a tl.net forum (or both)
iNcontroL *
Profile Blog Joined July 2004
USA29055 Posts
March 09 2010 18:14 GMT
#49
nice
bludragen88
Profile Joined August 2008
United States527 Posts
March 09 2010 18:15 GMT
#50
Everyone is focusing a lot on the high ground aspect, but what do people think of the 3 warpgate nerfs that Nazgul has suggested? I posted about the first idea in the "are we passing blizzard" thread, but there wasn't a lot of discussion afterwards so I was hoping to continue it here.

I personally think that the first option is the best, because like Nazgul says the third option (warp gates higher in tech tree) changes other matchups (which don't seem to be broken yet), and the second one is rather arbitrary - would 10 seconds always be your opponents main, even if you spawn at close or far positions on a 4 person map? What about with more players in the game (4 person FFA). How would you know the time lag before you started warping to the location, would the game tell you or would you see a status bar as it warps in?

Since those issues would remain with option two (warp lag depending on distance), I think using pylon's psi fields would work out much better. There are two distinct ways to implement this - you cannot warp a unit into an opponent's psi area, or you cannot use a pylon in an opponent's psi area to warp. The first means that one pylon cannot block one enemy pylon, so warpgate rush may still be viable, and the second is potentially too powerful because just a few pylons could keep a large area defended.
Ryhn
Profile Joined February 2010
United States509 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 18:54:31
March 09 2010 18:16 GMT
#51
Nevermind =p
Famous Books Written by Progamers - "Clam: Mastering your other self"
CursOr
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
United States6335 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 18:21:35
March 09 2010 18:20 GMT
#52
Thank you so much for talking about High Ground.
This is my #1 Issue...

Ramps? Cliffs? Whats the point if they are just more pathing and LOS blockers?
They talk about the game being "more dynamic" but this piece of shit "dynamic" just serves to make the maps more flat, vanilla, and just plain boring. More Zerglings blocking ramps vs Zealots IMO.

No more random, do a flat damage reduction up hills please.

AND.. lmfao about the 2 gate Warping in PvP. I'm playing just Terran now so I had no idea... though I did notice people were getting REALLY fast with warping Zealots into/close to my base... o.O
CJ forever (-_-(-_-(-_-(-_-)-_-)-_-)-_-)
ckjy
Profile Joined March 2010
United States12 Posts
March 09 2010 18:36 GMT
#53
On March 10 2010 03:16 Ryhn wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 10 2010 00:34 micronesia wrote:
Can you explain how 50% miss means 4 hits to kill the marine?


Here you go. =3

M = Miss
H = Hit
X = Marine Already Dead


All possible outcomes of a tank trying to kill a marine in 4 shots (Omitting impossible results such as: HHHM):

HMMM - Marine lives
HHXX - Marine Dies on Second strike
HMHX - Marine Dies on Third strike
HMMH - Marine Dies on Fourth strike
MHHX - Marine Dies on Third strike
MMHH - Marine Dies on Fourth strike
MMMH - Marine lives
MMMM - Marine lives

Results:

3/8 times a marine will survive 4 shots.
2/8 times a marine will die on the 4th shot
2/8 times a marine will die on the 3rd shot
1/8 times a marine will die on the 2nd shot.


You asked how a marine could survive 4 shots on average?

Well, 5/8 of these results have the marine surviving to take at least 4 shots.

-Note-

If anyone notices a mistake in my analysis, please say so!


This ignores the actual probability of a hit and a miss. Suppose the probability of a hit is 90%. How does that change the calculation?
lipebra
Profile Joined August 2009
Brazil130 Posts
March 09 2010 18:39 GMT
#54
No more random!!!!

Put like a 10% redution, and that is it!!
Ryhn
Profile Joined February 2010
United States509 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 20:58:18
March 09 2010 18:39 GMT
#55
Nevermind. =p
Famous Books Written by Progamers - "Clam: Mastering your other self"
ckjy
Profile Joined March 2010
United States12 Posts
March 09 2010 18:47 GMT
#56
On March 10 2010 03:39 Ryhn wrote:
50% assumes that they're both equally likely, that's not an issue


According to his calculation, the probability of the tank missing four times in a row (MMMM) is the same as the tank killing the marine in two consecutive shots (HHXX).

The probability of a single hit or a miss may be the same, but four consecutive misses is not equivalent to two consecutive hits.
Ryhn
Profile Joined February 2010
United States509 Posts
March 09 2010 18:53 GMT
#57
Very good point my friend, the chance of consecutive hits/misses would diminish. I'll erase my post and work on it more when I have some spare time. Thanks for the feedback! =3
Famous Books Written by Progamers - "Clam: Mastering your other self"
After7days
Profile Joined December 2009
Denmark52 Posts
March 09 2010 19:00 GMT
#58
I get that miss seems to be more "fair" but it also adds more "luck" to the game, which i more or less dislike.
Personally, id prefer as it is
or
Damage reduction, that way you know that will happen and the random chance of miss wont effect a battle.
fx.
Tank shoots at a lets say marauder, tank misses the first 3 shots and losses the battle. Not common but its lucky for the defender.
With damage reduction, you know from experience, that a tank will win over 1 marauder and lose vs two. (example)
ikarigendo
Profile Joined December 2009
United States99 Posts
March 09 2010 19:11 GMT
#59
@Ryhn
To get the average number of shots required, you just multiply the number of hits needed by the probability of a hit (assuming no health regeneration). It is basic expected value theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

Pokebunny
Profile Blog Joined June 2008
United States10654 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 19:35:05
March 09 2010 19:33 GMT
#60
Yeah, he's wrong.

There is a 25% chance for HH, killing the marine instantly.

There is a 50% chance of HM/MH, leaving the marine with 1 hit left.

25% chance of MM, leaving it with full HP

then repeat.

25% 2 shot
25% 3 shot
afaik... idk how to do the rest.

On March 10 2010 04:00 After7days wrote:
I get that miss seems to be more "fair" but it also adds more "luck" to the game, which i more or less dislike.
Personally, id prefer as it is
or
Damage reduction, that way you know that will happen and the random chance of miss wont effect a battle.
fx.
Tank shoots at a lets say marauder, tank misses the first 3 shots and losses the battle. Not common but its lucky for the defender.
With damage reduction, you know from experience, that a tank will win over 1 marauder and lose vs two. (example)


I would prefer that. It's more exciting seeing a player decide to either go in or back out, knowing that the outcome of the battle has a bit to do with luck as well as judging the situation. This is what makes the players with "balls" - playing against the odds and making it work.
Semipro Terran player | Pokebunny#1710 | twitter.com/Pokebunny | twitch.tv/Pokebunny | facebook.com/PokebunnySC
GHOSTCLAW
Profile Blog Joined February 2008
United States17042 Posts
March 09 2010 19:43 GMT
#61
the pvp warpgate strategy is really really good, with no real viable counter. the proxy gates are highly entertaining. Solution? Island maps ^^

Seriously though, Blizzard is going to need to figure something out. I like the idea of making stalkers better, because I think that it would encourge more micro in all of the matchups.
PhotographerLiquipedia. Drop me a pm if you've got questions/need help.
lossofmercy
Profile Joined March 2010
United States29 Posts
March 09 2010 19:43 GMT
#62
Question: In Starcraft, is a miss considered a not fire or is it calculated like units under a dark swarm (splash still hits) or does it simply not fire 33% of the time? If it splashes/the shot is just set off by a distance, then people would have to recalculate the probability as firing in the middle still guarantees hits.
flamewheel
Profile Blog Joined December 2009
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
March 09 2010 20:07 GMT
#63
Thanks for the great read, Nazgul. I agree with you 100% about the no-miss high ground policy... Why do they even have mains situated on high ground then. It seems that small walls would do the same at this point. Oh well, I hope Blizzard reads this and fixes that problem.
Writerdamn, i was two days from retirement
MaestroSC
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
United States2073 Posts
March 09 2010 20:10 GMT
#64
On March 10 2010 00:09 Yammiez wrote:
I'm still in the new-er golden league where the PvP isn't yet tainted with the crazy warp gate rush. I would pull strategies i remember from watching the streams from TL to go stalkers then colossus and what not, but as fun as this warp gate strat is, it'll sure get boring in a couple of days. PvP is he new ZvZ? Also. Amazing Read! I love TL for stuff like this.


I liked ZvZ and on the contrary am bored to death by this warpgate rush. ZvZ was more a game of micro and had the possibility of lasting more then 5-7 minutes. PvP is just currently the most boring game to watch, i cant imagine a crowd cheering "woo! look at those 4 zealots fight!!" -_-"
crate
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States2474 Posts
March 09 2010 20:22 GMT
#65
Worker auto-targeting makes sense to me if you're dealing with zealots vs zealots + workers and the workers are attacking. If you a-move, the workers have more dps per hp, so if you target them you kill them quickly and thus end up taking less total damage -> better chance of winning the battle. I don't see a problem with this. Attacking zealots and ignoring the probes when both are attacking you is just bad AI.

Of course, I don't really know what "worker auto-targeting" means. If it means your zealots a-moved near a mineral line attack workers even when the workers aren't attacking back while a zealot is, that seems a bit ridiculous to me and I would agree it should change. If it auto-targets drones before zerglings that seems weird to me too because the zerglings are the better target in terms of winning the battle. But if my understanding is correct then I think this is an improvement, not a problem.

I fully agree about high ground mechanics being broken and about PvP being a really dumb matchup though.
We did. You did. Yes we can. No. || http://crawl.akrasiac.org/scoring/players/crate.html || twitch.tv/crate3333
enzym
Profile Joined January 2010
Germany1034 Posts
March 09 2010 20:47 GMT
#66
warpgates are fine in pvp. theres absolutely no reason why you should be able to tech while the other player is zealot rushing you. theres no imbalance either, since its mirror matchup. you can just 3warpgate next to your nex and dont take any damage, but if you win the micro encounter you can kill his pylons.

its an exciting matchup where a unit counts as much as in zvz. leave it be. didnt bother reading the other stuff.
"I fart a lot, often on my gf in bed, then we roll around laughing for 5 mins choking in gas." — exog // "…be'master, the art of reflection. If you are not a thinking man, to what purpose are you a man at all?" — S. T. Coleridge
son1dow
Profile Joined May 2009
Lithuania322 Posts
March 09 2010 20:51 GMT
#67
Easier to balance or not, I don't care. I don't want such randomness [misses] in the game, and I would expect a lot of people to, too. Please, Blizzard, don't do this :\
Play more Quake.
Jyxz
Profile Joined November 2009
United States117 Posts
March 09 2010 21:14 GMT
#68
On March 10 2010 00:14 luckybeni2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 09 2010 23:29 Skeggaba wrote:
Great post - i have no idea what you are talking about except the warp pylon stuff (got rushed as zerg and had NO trouble fending it off, but thats another story) - still trying to figure the game out

The problem of the warp rush is in the matchup pvp


Also Zerg is probably over powered.
This is Jimmy
Jyxz
Profile Joined November 2009
United States117 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-09 21:18:00
March 09 2010 21:16 GMT
#69
On March 10 2010 05:47 enzym wrote:
warpgates are fine in pvp. theres absolutely no reason why you should be able to tech while the other player is zealot rushing you. theres no imbalance either, since its mirror matchup. you can just 3warpgate next to your nex and dont take any damage, but if you win the micro encounter you can kill his pylons.

its an exciting matchup where a unit counts as much as in zvz. leave it be. didnt bother reading the other stuff.


Actually you are 100% wrong, because of the auto focus workers if you do the same strat in your own base you just lost the game. Trust me I've tried.


Edit: I think that they should certainly do a minor advantage for being on a hill, however I think the reason they haven't is because there are many maps you are not on a hill which would result in making those maps unbalanced: correct me if I am wrong.
This is Jimmy
Vasoline73
Profile Blog Joined February 2008
United States7760 Posts
March 09 2010 21:18 GMT
#70
Dude what the eff with people saying "plz no randomness."

How many times have you watched a SCBW match and shouted "omg come on how lucky can you get?! He totally got jewed by fighting from the low ground!! how lame!!" Seriously, I've never seen high ground "luck" appear broken in BW. If you attack up hill and lose, it's not luck, you're just dumb for fighting a battle from the low ground without taking into account high ground advantage. Low ground has a disadvantage in battle, it just makes sense.

How does damage reduction make sense? Does a bullet hurt 30% less if you get shot from low ground IRL? If you get hit, it doesn't matter if it's from low or high ground, the damage is the same. Low ground miss % makes more sense strategically because IRL that is the disadvantage of low ground. High ground has better vision and an easier time picking out targets... low ground has more problems to deal with and thus has a lower % of hitting their targets.

And before anyone with 18 posts says "hurp durp are warp gates and aliens IRL? nothing has to be realistic", I'm just saying strategically the game is much more interesting if low ground has a miss % instead of a set damage reduction. The game is deeper and battles will plays out more as it should, where high ground is just one aspect of "advantage" in an encounter. A set damage reduction is really shallow and like Chill alluded to once, makes the game easier to fully comprehend. Attacking from the low ground should be a risk. When you know "ok im fighting with 30% damage reduction but I know how much stuff he has with my obs so I know I'll win the fight regardless of the ramp and wall in" it's not a question anymore. Attacking from the low ground should be a choice.. by making the damage reduced you take away that choice because people will always know when it's right to engage from the low ground and when it's wrong. Which is boring and shallow IMO. And less realistic in a battle.

TLDR: Miss % is going to make the game deeper and more interesting than a flat damage reduction from the low ground
Smurfz
Profile Joined May 2008
United States327 Posts
March 09 2010 21:24 GMT
#71
Yep, all three of these things need to change one way or the other.

I'd prefer damage % decrease over chance to miss. Honestly I'd be fine with either though. Better than the current cliff mechanics either way.
InToTheWannaB
Profile Joined September 2002
United States4770 Posts
March 09 2010 21:25 GMT
#72
In PvP if they just made the Stalker do bonus damage to light units rather then armored do you guys think that may help? Then you can dance stalkers around and take pot shots at the zealots and get a critical mass of them. If they do better vs light units too that will help vs muta and M&ms in TvT. Besides having stalkers do extra damage vs armored seems like it steps on the the roll of the imortal alot.
When the spirit is not altogether slain, great loss teaches men and women to desire greatly, both for themselves and for others.
Comeh
Profile Blog Joined July 2008
United States18918 Posts
March 09 2010 21:55 GMT
#73
Although a lot of these issues worry me (obviously pvp), it also gives me a lot of hope - we are identifying severe problems in match-ups relatively quickly, and hopefully helping balance the game. I imagine as time goes on, we can do a pretty decent job to make sc2 into a great game :D. (and of course, there are always post-release patches )
ヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノDELETE ICEFROGヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(⌐■_■)ノヽ(
Heyoka
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
Katowice25012 Posts
March 09 2010 22:03 GMT
#74
Best beta article yet. I suspect the majority of TL agrees with each of these critiques, so hopefully Blizzard is aware that someone thinks these things are problems. They should all be pretty easy to change/fix from what I can tell so that is great news.
@RealHeyoka | ESL / DreamHack StarCraft Lead
tehSchoolBus
Profile Joined March 2010
United States2 Posts
March 09 2010 22:08 GMT
#75
Actually, marines have 45 hp in Starcraft 2.

But I think that the only thing that needs to actually be changed at this point is spellcasting. By allowing players to spellcast where they cannot see (but obviously within the spellcaster unit's range) you would open up opportunities to address the no LOS w/cliffs problem. Terran would be able to launch nukes on cliff units, as well as EMPs against toss to make units easier to clean up real fast after being scanned. Protoss would be able to use psionic storm. Zerg would be able to spawn infested terran on the cliff with infestors, giving temporary LOS.

After this, then we could see how players make tactical changes to deal with these situations. So far I like how things work though. As day[9] says, SC2 is really about being on the offensive and is brutal to those who do not take advantage of everything they can.
The Chinese say The leading goose gets shot down. The Japanese say The nail that sticks out gets hammered back in.
Osmoses
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
Sweden5302 Posts
March 09 2010 22:31 GMT
#76
I love it when problems are not only pointed out in a good way, but solutions are proposed along with it. Good solutions.
Excuse me hun, but what is your name? Vivian? I woke up next to you naked and, uh, did we, um?
Zapdos_Smithh
Profile Blog Joined October 2008
Canada2620 Posts
March 09 2010 22:42 GMT
#77
Excellent! I really hope this gets to Blizzard!
Bosko
Profile Joined February 2010
United States155 Posts
March 09 2010 22:48 GMT
#78
"With 100% hits on vision, the games get pushed to extremes; chokes become less of a factor when rushing (it's not hard to get vision of a choke early game) and cliffs become immensely strong. "

It's like high ground is terrible and amazing at the same time. It doesn't sound right but when I'm playing I feel the same way.
synapse
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
China13814 Posts
March 09 2010 23:14 GMT
#79
Pylon overlap => no warp could yield some hilarious games... imagine someone floating that sneaks a probe into opponent's base during a big battle... xD

Personally, I think that both %miss and damage reduction are great ideas... new mechanics for a new game after all.
:)
Rucky
Profile Joined February 2008
United States717 Posts
March 09 2010 23:23 GMT
#80
I don't really have a problem with units attacking from highground aren't revealed because it seems logical. Relying on an observer for cliff battles are new to the game, but the concept of relying on observers is not, so there is no problem there. It'll be more micro intensive to protect your observers and to use it to give you just enough vision of the cliff, not right on top of their army. you at least hear the sound of the unit attacks so you can deduce what is attacking.

100% hits with vision affects three components of the game. Don't get confused, don't mix them up, don't think just because it seems probable on one means it should be implemented.

There's CHOKES, CLIFFS and HIGHGROUNDS!
Chokes and Cliffs already provide advantages so the 100% hit doesn't hurt the defenders advantage of those locations as much. For highground battles, with 100% hit, the whole component of the game disappears. Positioning of highground is no longer advantageous for w/e reasons (attacking, defending, holding key spots) The entire map would be flat and that will lead to boring games of stronger army attacking weaker army. There's no high ground to retreat to. This might be why people see the trend of the game is that way. The person with stronger larger army should not always win. They should gain map control and that leads on and on to other tangents. Main thing is it all starts with the positional advantage of highground.

Beyond the Game
brocoli
Profile Joined February 2010
Brazil264 Posts
March 09 2010 23:48 GMT
#81
Is random miss & damage reduction the only alternatives everyone can think of?

IMHO the best way would be to change the Rate Of Fire (preferably by adding % in the cooldown) for units in low ground (in an advanced technology war you can probably hit an opponent in high ground for 100% damage, but it would take longer to aim, thus the delay)

This doesn't involve any randomness (it's good to avoid it, I've seen a few instances of scouts surviving dragoon shots due to miss in SCBW), doesn't alter the number of hits required for a kill, adds another discrete element in the game (which is good for competitivity, as these magnify the effects of subtle controls), and ensures that the one in the high ground has a chance to attack, and the one in the low ground at least takes damage.



As for the warp gate nerf... the pylon rule is kinda nice =)
Another possibility (kinda fits in the 3rd option) is to scrap the warp gate research, but require a Twilight Council for changing modes/ for warping in. This would give protoss more tech flexibility, but would delay warpgates a little.
Wolfpox
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada164 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-10 00:08:28
March 10 2010 00:03 GMT
#82
here's a TL stats nerd with a number crunch.

Ha ha ha ha

This is a very good news item, I really hope Blizzard tries out different defender strategies. I've been watching many SC2Beta matches and I felt that something big was missing... Then I watched a SC1 Pro-gaming match and I realized that attacking a base should feel more risky than it currently does.

Also, as far as Proxy rushing, I love each of the suggestions you mentioned! But I think the "simplest" solution would be to simply make the research time of the warp-gate function much longer, without moving the tech-tree placement, so that there's more time to prepare defenses. Maybe even 3 times as long to research as currently?

I've always felt that Warp-in function was overpowered to begin with, and the beta is proving this to me. I suppose the Medivac and Nydus canal are supposed to balance this by being equally overpowered, but why not make warping a little more risky?
[B] Butigroove wrote:[/B] Blizzard is double expanding to the natural gold base of our poor little nerd hearts.
Maceifer
Profile Joined February 2010
Germany11 Posts
March 10 2010 00:19 GMT
#83
On March 10 2010 06:18 Vasoline73 wrote:
Dude what the eff with people saying "plz no randomness."

And before anyone with 18 posts says "hurp durp are warp gates and aliens IRL? nothing has to be realistic", I'm just saying strategically the game is much more interesting if low ground has a miss % instead of a set damage reduction. The game is deeper and battles will plays out more as it should, where high ground is just one aspect of "advantage" in an encounter. A set damage reduction is really shallow and like Chill alluded to once, makes the game easier to fully comprehend. Attacking from the low ground should be a risk. When you know "ok im fighting with 30% damage reduction but I know how much stuff he has with my obs so I know I'll win the fight regardless of the ramp and wall in" it's not a question anymore. Attacking from the low ground should be a choice.. by making the damage reduced you take away that choice because people will always know when it's right to engage from the low ground and when it's wrong. Which is boring and shallow IMO. And less realistic in a battle.


It's 8 posts, not 18. Which doesn't help with your weak "arguments". Could be my first post and what you say would still be nonsense.

You do not provide any tangible argument, which as we grown ups call it, is essential for a fact based discussion. So you "feel" a certain way about the game which will in any shape or form diminish the game's viability for competition. Fine, please take them to the howdoyoufeel forums. Being able to luck out on a tankshot and win a battle because your colossus gets off a crucial last thermal lance maybe fun and exciting, but as important as excitement is, I guess most people who visit this site will agree that the game being a vessel for professional competition is more important.
If brute force does not solve your problem, you are not using enough...
TopHat
Profile Joined February 2010
United States12 Posts
March 10 2010 00:35 GMT
#84
Good read, thanks for taking the time to put it together.
Daigomi
Profile Blog Joined May 2006
South Africa4316 Posts
March 10 2010 00:55 GMT
#85
On March 10 2010 09:19 Maceifer wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 10 2010 06:18 Vasoline73 wrote:
Dude what the eff with people saying "plz no randomness."

And before anyone with 18 posts says "hurp durp are warp gates and aliens IRL? nothing has to be realistic", I'm just saying strategically the game is much more interesting if low ground has a miss % instead of a set damage reduction. The game is deeper and battles will plays out more as it should, where high ground is just one aspect of "advantage" in an encounter. A set damage reduction is really shallow and like Chill alluded to once, makes the game easier to fully comprehend. Attacking from the low ground should be a risk. When you know "ok im fighting with 30% damage reduction but I know how much stuff he has with my obs so I know I'll win the fight regardless of the ramp and wall in" it's not a question anymore. Attacking from the low ground should be a choice.. by making the damage reduced you take away that choice because people will always know when it's right to engage from the low ground and when it's wrong. Which is boring and shallow IMO. And less realistic in a battle.


It's 8 posts, not 18. Which doesn't help with your weak "arguments". Could be my first post and what you say would still be nonsense.

You do not provide any tangible argument, which as we grown ups call it, is essential for a fact based discussion. So you "feel" a certain way about the game which will in any shape or form diminish the game's viability for competition. Fine, please take them to the howdoyoufeel forums. Being able to luck out on a tankshot and win a battle because your colossus gets off a crucial last thermal lance maybe fun and exciting, but as important as excitement is, I guess most people who visit this site will agree that the game being a vessel for professional competition is more important.

It's funny, but the people who visit the site, and who have followed Starcraft for a long time, seem to either not care whether its misses or damage reduction, or prefer damage reduction. So far 8 people have posted saying "no random please" in some form or another in this thread. The median post count for these posters is 30 posts, which is very low. Only one of these posters has more than 1500 posts, the point where posters might be considered veteran. On the other hand, I know that many of the better players say that miss is a better solution (for example, incontrol and Chill). I'm not saying that the older players are right here, it might just be that they are used to the old way, but it definitely can't be said that all competitive people agree.

All in all, this issue has been argued to infinity and back without any real results, and people seem intent on doing it again in this thread. The point of my stats was not that miss is better or worse than damage reduction, simply that it is easier to balance. A 50% miss chance means that all units do 50% as much effective damage to higher ground, while a 50% damage reduction means that some units will kick much more ass against higher ground (tanks for example), than others. I also had a second scenario which looked at the problems with the way armor is calculated, but I excluded it because I'm not sure exactly when the armor is calculated in.

In the end, both systems can be made to work. Miss-chance is slightly more intuitive and easier to balance, while damage reduction is more predictable. The point of the newspost is that something needs to be done, be it miss or damage reduction, my section was just a bit of information on why these two things aren't exactly the same.

If you insist on discussing it, then the Anakin thread is a good place to do so. I think this post should be required reading on the topic, as it summarises all the main points and addresses some of the misconceptions very well.
Moderator
nihil2501
Profile Joined October 2008
United States142 Posts
March 10 2010 00:56 GMT
#86
i'm pretty sure the math in miss chance v damage reduction isn't math
deL
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
Australia5540 Posts
March 10 2010 01:23 GMT
#87
Good read, it was accessible even to people without a key or who play Terran.

One thinks that all the talk with the cliffs would have been glaringly obvious to the devs when making this new mechanic, and that they would have already considered the old 1/3 miss one. That kinda of makes me think it won't really change too much and they will instead look for another way around it.

As for PvP yeah it really needs something - personally I thought of those 3 solutions myself, except that having a pylon in their powered area (which you can't see, adding some element of savvy required) cancels out their warp-in effect. I think having the two fields meet cancelling it out is not as managable and your pylon could theoretically be really far away and it would still cancel it out which seems unintuitive.

Or even if it's not pylon, and it's an enemy gateway in their power section it might alleviate it to some degree. I really like the basic idea though as it only affects this one problem match-up.

Higher up tech tree affects the other match-ups a lot, so I am not a fan.

The whole 'further away takes more time' thing seems a little complicated, and from what we've seen they are trying to keep SC2 relatively simple so a hunch tells me I don't think this will be implemented.

Even something like not being able to warp in near mineral lines or something could be good too.
Gaming videos for fun ~ http://www.youtube.com/user/WijLopenLos
Wolfpox
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
Canada164 Posts
March 10 2010 01:59 GMT
#88
I really hope Blizzard isn't going to just be content with the way things are and say "It's close enough, we can tweak it later" because now is their chance to do all sorts of crazy shit and possibly hit the jackpot with an alteration.
[B] Butigroove wrote:[/B] Blizzard is double expanding to the natural gold base of our poor little nerd hearts.
3FFA
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States3931 Posts
March 10 2010 02:00 GMT
#89
I'll take drone's word for it if only because he is awesome and an experienced(old) SC player who has SCII beta(deserved it too). 9/10 doctors? WTF lol.
"As long as it comes from a pure place and from a honest place, you know, you can write whatever you want."
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
March 10 2010 02:30 GMT
#90
Thank you daigomi and ckjy for contributing to the discussion with 1. calm and 2. correct information from 3. the proper perspective.

I hate myself for prolonging the argument here but I can't help fighting the bandwagon echo chamber: randomness in games is not inherently bad, and it doesn't automatically make them less competitive. I say this mostly just so the viewpoint is represented for perpetuity, when others peruse this thread. I have yet to see a cohesive argument to the contrary. If you know of one, please point me there so I can debate it. Theory aside, if you need a real life example, look at poker.

Great article!
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
nexusil
Profile Joined July 2009
United States52 Posts
March 10 2010 02:36 GMT
#91
Why not just increase the bonus damage taken while warping in so that a few probes could kill a zealot under warp? I keep mentioning this but no one seems to respond to it
StarBrift
Profile Joined January 2008
Sweden1761 Posts
March 10 2010 02:37 GMT
#92
I really really agree with this. Reinstating ramp miss chance (or damage reduction) will add SO MUCH dynamic to the game. There need to be places on a map where a small ammount of units can defend well. It's not fun to have all your builds be geared so that you at all points in a game can beat your opponent in an open battle with all your units. How is that adding to strategic depth?

In my opinion this is the #1 reason why all in attacks are broken in this beta.
dangots0ul
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
United States919 Posts
March 10 2010 02:39 GMT
#93
nazgul for prez!
i type teamliquid into the url subconsciously... all...the...time...
mishimaBeef
Profile Blog Joined January 2010
Canada2259 Posts
March 10 2010 02:59 GMT
#94
Sorry but in SC1 isn't the protoss army dependent on preventing obs sniping against zerg?
Dare to live the life you have dreamed for yourself. Go forward and make your dreams come true. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Deviation
Profile Joined November 2009
United States134 Posts
March 10 2010 03:28 GMT
#95
I'm really interested in what Blizzard thinks about the OP's issues.
LunarC
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States1186 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-10 04:37:27
March 10 2010 04:31 GMT
#96
On March 10 2010 11:59 mishimaBeef wrote:
Sorry but in SC1 isn't the protoss army dependent on preventing obs sniping against zerg?

That's to keep the Lurkers alive and has nothing to do with the high ground advantage being discussed here.

A damage reduction for lower armies is not a good way to create a high ground advantage at all. This makes the choice whether to engage uphill or not simply a matter of knowing that you have enough units to engage. Also, this simply creates an effect where units on the high ground will simply be able to absorb more damage. Miss percent chance is better because units will still be only able to take as many hits as normal, and it makes the decision of whether to engage uphill or not more dependent on whether the player is willing to take the risk to engage. The core issue is that if there is a spotter, the two armies might as well be engaging on the same level so there really is no reason not to attack.
REEBUH!!!
mixedstrats
Profile Joined April 2009
United States3 Posts
March 10 2010 04:36 GMT
#97
Preface, I haven't played much pvp in beta:
But another suggestion I might make is to give the nexus an additional ability much like the orbital command that does massive damage to a building in range X of the nexus, and gives a trade off to risking chrono boosting before scouting in pvp much like mindless mules can bite you if you don't' have energy for scan when you need it. Also people aren't yet brainstorming advantage of the high ground properly, consider terran wall off, if you wall off on the low ground and repair they can't "snipe" your units since they can't get vision though this is of course disadvantaged if the opponents range is similar.
Eeeegor
Profile Joined April 2005
Australia809 Posts
March 10 2010 04:45 GMT
#98
Nice post Nazgul - thanks for the good read

Hope the next patch addresses this stuff
Day9 Made Me Do It
Ryuu314
Profile Joined October 2009
United States12679 Posts
March 10 2010 06:03 GMT
#99
I really like the first idea to deal with the PvP warp gate rushing. The other two are less attractive to me as it impacts the whole warp-gate dynamic a lot more than needed for other matchups. Besides, if pylons cancel the warp technology out for each other it could lead to a lot of interesting skirmishes for just a single pylon and its position. x]

Even if no changes are made I'm sure the MU will develop just fine. Perhaps PvP will be the new ZvZ, with very few viable strategies and a fast-paced micro game.
Nightmarjoo
Profile Blog Joined October 2006
United States3360 Posts
March 10 2010 06:50 GMT
#100
Good post, I agree with everything in it. It really seems like blizzard got bored with grey-areas and just took everything to its black and white extreme. I have a hard time believing they seriously didn't think of some of these situations, so I wonder what their justification was to keep them this way.
aka Lyra; My favourites: July, Stork, Draco, MistrZZZ, TheStc, LastShadow - www.broodwarmaps.net - for all your mapping needs; check my stream: high masters mech terran: twitch.tv/lyrathegreat
Gigaudas
Profile Blog Joined December 2008
Sweden1213 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-10 07:28:37
March 10 2010 07:22 GMT
#101
@OP

/signed

The pylon idea is great. Not just great, it's awesome.

The current high ground mechanics are aweful. I miss the old ones.

The worker part is the least important to me. Against melee units it will always be possible to withdraw damaged probes thanks to having nearby and easily clickable minerals. You're screwd versus mnm though.
I
thunk
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
United States6233 Posts
March 10 2010 08:48 GMT
#102
The way I see it having the PvP really short and tense is just like ZvZ. It doesn't really matter because a similar percentage of ZvZ's get to high tech as PvP's do, and we're fine with that, so I don't see how it's a problem. PvP might also evolve into a rock-paper-scissors match up.
Every time Jung Myung Hoon builds a vulture, two probes die. || My post count was a palindrome and I was never posting again.
Kickchon
Profile Joined March 2010
Germany12 Posts
March 10 2010 10:49 GMT
#103
Hi guys,
when I calculate the required amount of average hits I get a result of 3 shots.

Here is my calculation:

We want to calculate P(X >= 2). We need 2 or more hits.
This is equivalent to 1- P(X < 2) = 1 - P(X = 0) - P(X = 1).
This is an Bernoulli experiment. So using P(X) = Bp,n(X) with p = 0.5 and Bp,n(X) = (n over x) p^x * (1-p)^(n-x) :

1 - B0.5,n(0) - B0.5,n(1) which results in 1 - (n over 0) * 0,5^n - (n over 1) * 0.5^n.

Furthermore
1 - 1 * 0.5^n - n * 0.5^n = 1 - (1+n) * 0.5^n

Now this formular depends on the amount of shots we want to do in total. But we're interested in the average value, so we want this probability to exceed 0.5.

0.5 <= 1 - (1+n) * 0.5^n => (1+n) * 0.5^n <= 0.5.
As n can only be an integer value, we find:

n = 0: 1 <= 0.5 wrong
n = 1: 1 <= 0.5 wrong
n = 2: 0.75 <= 0.5 wrong
n = 3: 0.5 <= 0.5 correct

Therefore we have 50% probability to kill the rine in 3 shots, no?
Space_C0wb0y
Profile Joined March 2009
Germany41 Posts
March 10 2010 11:33 GMT
#104
About the PvP thing, does the rushing player typically have to use the Chrono-Boost on his Warpgates to succeed? If so, another viable solution would be to disable (or nerf) Chrono-Boost for Warpgates.
Daigomi
Profile Blog Joined May 2006
South Africa4316 Posts
March 10 2010 11:52 GMT
#105
On March 10 2010 19:49 Kickchon wrote:
Hi guys,
when I calculate the required amount of average hits I get a result of 3 shots.

Here is my calculation:

We want to calculate P(X >= 2). We need 2 or more hits.
This is equivalent to 1- P(X < 2) = 1 - P(X = 0) - P(X = 1).
This is an Bernoulli experiment. So using P(X) = Bp,n(X) with p = 0.5 and Bp,n(X) = (n over x) p^x * (1-p)^(n-x) :

1 - B0.5,n(0) - B0.5,n(1) which results in 1 - (n over 0) * 0,5^n - (n over 1) * 0.5^n.

Furthermore
1 - 1 * 0.5^n - n * 0.5^n = 1 - (1+n) * 0.5^n

Now this formular depends on the amount of shots we want to do in total. But we're interested in the average value, so we want this probability to exceed 0.5.

0.5 <= 1 - (1+n) * 0.5^n => (1+n) * 0.5^n <= 0.5.
As n can only be an integer value, we find:

n = 0: 1 <= 0.5 wrong
n = 1: 1 <= 0.5 wrong
n = 2: 0.75 <= 0.5 wrong
n = 3: 0.5 <= 0.5 correct

Therefore we have 50% probability to kill the rine in 3 shots, no?

You have a 50% probability of killing them in 3 shots, but you will kill it on average in 4 shots (because occasionally it will take you 5 or 6 shots to kill it). Think about it like this: If a tank shoots 80 times, it will hit 40 times and there will be twenty dead marines. Thus, on average, it will take four shots to kill a marine. As you say though, there is a 50% chance that the marine will die in the first three shots, but that doesn't mean that it will take an average of three shots to kill the marine.
Moderator
Kickchon
Profile Joined March 2010
Germany12 Posts
March 10 2010 12:33 GMT
#106
Or sometimes, the unit might not die at all. ;P
Anyway, on average 4 shots is correct but I oversimplifies the case and is not fair to compare both methods in such a way. However this is neglectible since the main article emphazises to change something at all.
I don't care how it is fixed, as long as it gets addressed.

Btw, nice writeup anyway.
son1dow
Profile Joined May 2009
Lithuania322 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-10 14:06:10
March 10 2010 14:05 GMT
#107
On March 10 2010 06:18 Vasoline73 wrote:
Dude what the eff with people saying "plz no randomness."

How many times have you watched a SCBW match and shouted "omg come on how lucky can you get?! He totally got jewed by fighting from the low ground!! how lame!!" Seriously, I've never seen high ground "luck" appear broken in BW. If you attack up hill and lose, it's not luck, you're just dumb for fighting a battle from the low ground without taking into account high ground advantage. Low ground has a disadvantage in battle, it just makes sense.

How does damage reduction make sense? Does a bullet hurt 30% less if you get shot from low ground IRL? If you get hit, it doesn't matter if it's from low or high ground, the damage is the same. Low ground miss % makes more sense strategically because IRL that is the disadvantage of low ground. High ground has better vision and an easier time picking out targets... low ground has more problems to deal with and thus has a lower % of hitting their targets.

And before anyone with 18 posts says "hurp durp are warp gates and aliens IRL? nothing has to be realistic", I'm just saying strategically the game is much more interesting if low ground has a miss % instead of a set damage reduction. The game is deeper and battles will plays out more as it should, where high ground is just one aspect of "advantage" in an encounter. A set damage reduction is really shallow and like Chill alluded to once, makes the game easier to fully comprehend. Attacking from the low ground should be a risk. When you know "ok im fighting with 30% damage reduction but I know how much stuff he has with my obs so I know I'll win the fight regardless of the ramp and wall in" it's not a question anymore. Attacking from the low ground should be a choice.. by making the damage reduced you take away that choice because people will always know when it's right to engage from the low ground and when it's wrong. Which is boring and shallow IMO. And less realistic in a battle.

TLDR: Miss % is going to make the game deeper and more interesting than a flat damage reduction from the low ground


man, you must be joking. Don't you see the difference between luck that's always the same with same input and luck that's simply random? Imagine losing a game - not because you did a mistake, but because missed two times in a row. Or three times. The skill to count that in isn't any near the worth to negate luck. Did you play wc3 or smth?
Play more Quake.
Jonoman92
Profile Blog Joined September 2006
United States9102 Posts
March 10 2010 17:35 GMT
#108
Nice write-up. I agree that some sort of high ground mechanic should be put in place (I'd favor a random miss chance over straight up damage reduction, similar to what bw had.)

Right now the defenders advantage just doesn't seem significant enough.
bountyface
Profile Joined February 2010
United States95 Posts
March 10 2010 19:44 GMT
#109
so starcraft 2 should be more like starcraft 1. great suggestions.
ddk
Profile Joined December 2009
United Kingdom38 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-11 01:06:14
March 11 2010 01:02 GMT
#110
Absolutely spot on, great write up Nazgul!

I would also be interested to hear your opinions on the current dynamics of air in SC2. Is there too much air dominance currently, and nothing to really punish it? - should it be punished? The whole air idea coincides with your points on positioning/terrain advantages, and the advantages gained from having a mobile army. It's easy to compare it to broodwar and long for the drawn out battles fought on the ground for map control, but of course... it is a new game. But, it seems to me that it almost removes some valuable RTS mechanic that we saw in broodwar, where it was possible to control areas of the map with ground forces. In SC2 your ground is far too vulnerable to air attack, as there are no easy counters (corsairs/goliaths/valkyries/scourge etc).
ym
Broodie
Profile Blog Joined May 2008
Canada832 Posts
March 11 2010 01:05 GMT
#111
i definitely agree with mostly everything said here, especially with the hit/miss chances, I often used things like trees and cliffs as an advantage, take Heartbreak ridge as a PRIME example, there are huge portions of high ground vs low ground, and lost temple has trees (may not seem like much) but they also have a miss/hit ratio that can save you early game...

I also believe this idea should be tested because of the added level of ground (HIGH-MID-LOW)
this leaves so many options open for map makers who, guaranteed, would love this feature implemented.

the thing is that with how high ground vs low ground is now, it leaves no room for creativity beyond making a map that is all mid ground and has chokes everywhere, that is the only way this mechanic works right now, as an equal choke between both players...

Ive had many matches where i was maybe one or 2 of the same units down, defending a cliff and still got pwnd, this would not happen in broodwar (looked for the video of 3 marines shooting down at a sunken and winning but couldnt find it)

I hope you posted this in the Beta forums on Bnet, keep up the good work and if you want to try more testing I'm down for the cause lol
SilentLiquid.Broodie - Author of Tango Terminal, Ophilia RE, Cajun Quandary, & The Beneath
-orb-
Profile Blog Joined September 2007
United States5770 Posts
March 11 2010 01:49 GMT
#112
Good read. This is what beta is for! Beta is most likely going to be going on for like 4 more months or so. Why can't they change these things and see what happens? If they don't like the results change them back!

I can't help but feel like they should be patching so much more often and trying out different changes for balance changes.

Also that interview with dustin browder really makes it seem like all he cares about balance-wise is every race having a 50% win ratio when there is so much more depth to the game than just race vs race balance.
'life of lively to live to life of full life thx to shield battery'
how sad that sc2 has no shield battery :(
Tiptup
Profile Joined June 2007
United States133 Posts
March 11 2010 02:11 GMT
#113
I'm sorry I'm not a regular TL poster and that I've missed the other discussions of this issue, but I have some questions and observations I'm not seeing addressed in this thread.

On March 10 2010 09:55 Daigomi wrote:
The point of my stats was not that miss is better or worse than damage reduction, simply that it is easier to balance.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but adding a chance to miss only makes the game easier to balance "statistically." In general, however, wouldn't the addition of random chance be a factor that actually works against precisely predictable balance?

Sure, "statistically" you'd preserve the hit/kill ratio for tanks vs. marines on a flat battlefield. "Statistically" you'd just be reducing the effective speed of every unit's hit/kill ratio when the units are firing at higher ground. However, as far as I understand the world, the nature of statistics is that you can't count on them in crucial, isolated moments (statistics only follow norms on the large scale) and I'm personally hoping that winning in StarCraft 2 will rely upon those kinds of crucial-but-small differences (just as SC:BW did).

StarCraft and StarCraft 2 (the little I've been able to test it with my girlfriend's beta key . . . sigh) are games that can have drastic outcomes decided by tiny margins. Neither game is very forgiving in the sense that they give players plenty of opportunities to heal units or escape from a battle. As such, it wouldn't seem out of the ordinary for me to imagine a single, extra-unlucky miss by a single siege tank which could then yield a drastic result in the other player's favor. Sure, your random, high/low ground factor could offer the potential for other unlucky shots at other points in the same game, but I have a great deal of trouble believing that every possible miss provided by that factor will be equally as critical to the game.

Yes, percentage-based damage reduction is harder to balance, but at least it's potentially predictable and (again, correct me if I'm wrong) predictability is the bedrock of strategic balance. For example, you could flip a coin with a friend, and that's balanced statistically (both participants get one side of the coin), but in that same situation there's absolutely no balance that is affected by player choices, player skill, and player mistakes. All random elements Blizzard puts into SC2 will have that exact same relationship to player interaction. (At best, a player can only predict random results and strategically embrace or avoid them.) In other words, while, obviously, the effect you're talking about for SC2 would be smaller than the effect of chance in coin flipping, the fundamental relationship is the same, and that could be undesirable if, again, as I believe, small advantages in a single battle can often (and should often) lead to large results.

I think balancing for damage reduction would pay off in the long run by giving us a more interactive, skill-based game. In fact, we could say that the complexity of having hit/kill ratios altered in cliff battles (as they were in SC1) adds a greater potential for player mistakes (and greater potential for a really skilled, smart player to gain an advantage). Some of the people here who are whining about how they don't want SC2 to be a predictable game are actually desiring a game that requires no skill (and they should go play coin flipping or "shoots and ladders"). If the predictability of a game is too simple (and therefore too easy) for them, then that's the fault of the game design, not the presence of predictability itself. Making a game harder to balance is generally beneficial for strategic gameplay (as SC:BW proves).

Otherwise, there are ways to preserve predictability in an altered cliff dynamic without that dynamic being different from the unit balance on flat ground:

1. Blizzard could give each unit specific bonuses and negatives when firing at a unit on higher ground (which would be easy balance and very easy to learn). This could also potentially add greater level of fun to the game by providing whole new uses for underused units when they fire at (or from) higher ground. (They could also keep the fog shroud for smaller, quieter-firing units, and have larger, louder units—such as the Siege Tank or Collossus—give away their position in the shroud.)

2. Blizzard could add a simple-to-understand, but difficult-to-calculate modifier for damage that is based on hits to kill. So if a 40 hp Marine takes two hits to kill from Siege Tank damage, a 50% damage reduction by this modifier would lower Siege Tank's damage to the point where 3 hits always do less than 40 damage to a marine while 4 hits always do more than 40 damage. (It would take me a while to think of a formula which would do this elegantly, however, so I'm not going to bother suggesting anything specific here.)

Both of these solutions would do what you want without introducing more game-changing randomness into StarCraft 2. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer that; it helps preserve the kind of strategic gameplay I enjoy.
So certain are you.
TurboT
Profile Joined January 2010
Germany33 Posts
March 11 2010 08:41 GMT
#114
Both of these solutions would do what you want without introducing more game-changing randomness into StarCraft 2. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer that; it helps preserve the kind of strategic gameplay I enjoy.


Agreed!

But the changes will also add another great "feature" back to Starcraft that many players seem forget these days. "The Power of Gosudancing"! Seeing two players not wanting to engage each other because of Low/Highground Ad/Disadvantage was quite fun to watch :D

On April 12 2010 15:09 Manifesto7 wrote: To not GG is to not respect the art.
Legionnaire
Profile Joined January 2003
Australia4514 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-11 14:37:52
March 11 2010 14:34 GMT
#115
I agree 100%

I'd add some other things.

When you madly click units to retreat, the unit ai messes up and it half freezes. When you click too slowly as it gets attacked, it starts to retreat, then it runs back to reengage.

That annoys me a lot. When i give a move order i want it to move, i do NOT want it to go off and do stupid things. If i want it to engage enemies, i would have given it an attack move order.
My hope is one day stupid people will feel the same pain when they talk, as the pain the rest of us feel when we hear them. Twitter: @Legionnaire_au
Senx
Profile Blog Joined March 2008
Sweden5901 Posts
March 11 2010 15:44 GMT
#116
On March 11 2010 23:34 Legionnaire wrote:
I agree 100%

I'd add some other things.

When you madly click units to retreat, the unit ai messes up and it half freezes. When you click too slowly as it gets attacked, it starts to retreat, then it runs back to reengage.

That annoys me a lot. When i give a move order i want it to move, i do NOT want it to go off and do stupid things. If i want it to engage enemies, i would have given it an attack move order.


It feels a bit weird to be in the presence of legends.

Good points though, the unit control and the high-ground mechanic must be improved.
"trash micro but win - its marine" MC commentary during HSC 4
kAra
Profile Joined September 2004
Germany1355 Posts
March 11 2010 16:31 GMT
#117
nice read, im unhappy about all that things also : (
mada mada dane
crate
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States2474 Posts
March 11 2010 18:16 GMT
#118
On March 10 2010 23:05 son1dow wrote:
Imagine losing a game - not because you did a mistake, but because missed two times in a row. Or three times. The skill to count that in isn't any near the worth to negate luck. Did you play wc3 or smth?

I'm fine with the player who plays better not winning every single game. The player who plays better will still win the vast majority (>95% easily) of games. You can have good competitive games where the player who plays better doesn't win nearly that often (card games come to mind). Of course, you can have good competitive games where the player who plays better wins every single time too (chess, for instance).

If you lose because you're attacking up a ramp and get unlucky, you took a calculated (or not-so-calculated, if you're not thinking) risk and lost--it's your fault. If you lose because your opponent attacks up a ramp and gets lucky ... I would think that would be what would bother you, since that's not your fault at all.
We did. You did. Yes we can. No. || http://crawl.akrasiac.org/scoring/players/crate.html || twitch.tv/crate3333
G4MR
Profile Blog Joined February 2010
United States371 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-11 18:48:56
March 11 2010 18:36 GMT
#119
Possible solution for blizzard on proxy gating: Make it where the nexus has some sort of max radius that proxy's are limited to building in that range? (Nexus has some sort of grid that shows where you can build pylons, multiple nexus more possibilities.

What makes this good is regardless if a terran tries doing a fast rush with marines they would get rocked against T | Z. I personally think that would work out best for the game.

-------------

I do like #1 solution though - 1) When two enemy pylon fields meet the warp function ceases to work. One thing I hate about this solution is, what about PvZ gate rushes, we don't have pylons this idea doesn't work out as well.

My full solution on blizz: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23710232306&postId=237080590111&sid=5000#0
www.G4MR.net personal blog!
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
March 11 2010 22:36 GMT
#120
On March 11 2010 11:11 Tiptup wrote:
Yes, percentage-based damage reduction is harder to balance, but at least it's potentially predictable and (again, correct me if I'm wrong) predictability is the bedrock of strategic balance. For example, you could flip a coin with a friend, and that's balanced statistically (both participants get one side of the coin), but in that same situation there's absolutely no balance that is affected by player choices, player skill, and player mistakes. All random elements Blizzard puts into SC2 will have that exact same relationship to player interaction. (At best, a player can only predict random results and strategically embrace or avoid them.) In other words, while, obviously, the effect you're talking about for SC2 would be smaller than the effect of chance in coin flipping, the fundamental relationship is the same, and that could be undesirable if, again, as I believe, small advantages in a single battle can often (and should often) lead to large results.


I would talk way too much if I chose to respond with both exhaustive counterexamples and a theoretical rebuttal (as below), and I don't think either of us is looking for a fight to the death, so I'll just list some "soft" counterexamples as something to think about. Is Settlers of Catan predictable? Is it strategic? What about old fashioned marbles? Is Risk predictable, or strategic? I don't think the way you phrased the relationship between predictability and strategic balance is exactly accurate. I think players use predictability to assess strategies. But more fundamentally, your first window on strategies in any game is examining the possible lines of play, and what outcomes may result. Your certainty then plays a role in "scoring" those possibilities, sort of like expected utility.

The coin flip example doesn't translate into a complex game design as cleanly as you say. In your game, it's just a process, not a game. We agree you could also describe Shoots and Ladders this way. You're just flipping coins, so of course there's no interaction. But in Starcraft, if high ground provides chance to miss, the players, mostly the attacking player, choose whether to engage in "coin flipping", and how much and in what manner, which is a world of difference. More than that, once a battle begins, the tactics of cycling low health units out and in, and focus firing, etc, are modified to accommodate the miss chance. It's just one element of a much larger field of interactions. Players have tons of room to participate skillfully in that situation. As others have pointed out, when you have high ground damage reduction, the decision (given an informed attacker) comes down to "whose army wins?" which seems to limit decision making. But miss chance vs damage reduction aside, my main point is that random processes can be used to specific ends in design, to modify the strategic topography, if you will. Often you can use analogues, like damage reduction, and often the differences are subtle. But competitive play highlights subtlety, which is why we're arguing now.

If the predictability of a game is too simple (and therefore too easy) for them, then that's the fault of the game design, not the presence of predictability itself.


The predictability is the result of the design; it's arbitrary.

There's another thing I'd like to point out. There are two substantial ways in which Starcraft has functionally random processes, discarding high ground things. Consider that when you play, there are things you want to do but which you can only approximately do--your control of the game elements is imperfect. That's why I used marbles, a dexterity game, as an example. You can't exactly perform the strategy you've crafted, and the keen player will even factor that into his or her strategy. This means that when a battle occurs, for instance, the incremental mistakes or brilliances that determined the outcome were in part accidental. Even with two equally very skilled players the unit control is imperfect, which you can imagine results in "lucky" good breaks and "unlucky" bad breaks. I'm talking things as incremental as a zergling here or splash damage on your goons there. We conceptualize these incremental things as part of the melee of an engagement and write it off. But you can view it as strategic event whose outcome relies partially on random elements.

Consider also that a complex game like Starcraft is a series of inputs that depend on iterated outputs. The players "perturb" a machine in order to nudge its processes in their favor, watching how they're doing in real time. It might seem esoteric to describe "zealot rush" as perturbation of a systems process, but grant me it's a valid perspective. The reason I'm going here is because I want to bring up a property of systems and relate it to Starcraft. It's possible for a complex system with perfectly deterministic rules to have entirely unpredictable future states given minor changes in initial conditions, or inputs. This is roughly what people are talking about when they say chaos theory. Thus, even if we had perfect control of our units and buildings on a frame by frame basis, it wouldn't even be clear then how to proceed optimally. To provide a rhetorical bridge to why this means our strategies involve randomness: the iconic example of an unpredictable system is a fractal object. If you calculate its divergence at a given coordinate, there's literally no way to predict the divergence at a nearby coordinate. If you map these though, you get pretty pictures with an infinitely fine grain of ever changing details. So despite the fact that you're using one simple formula to construct the object, its microstructure is essentially random upon observation. That's the second way in which Starcraft, and any other complex game, has randomness. Beyond enumerating all possible outcomes, which is roughly how chess theory has proceeded, you can't count on predictability. So our army positioning, the timing of our teching, our choices of when and how to attack and harass, are all informed by the gamestate as we perceive it, but that gamestate could have been wildly different depending a minor change here or there. Of course the general flow of our games is understandable and repeateable; that's the result of how the system operates, how the game was designed. It would be a bad game if it didn't operate the way we roughly expect it too. But again, the subtleties are where the skillful player captures advantage, and the most subtle things are unpredictable, which appears random to the observer. And both players are observers of the system, though they also are giving it inputs.

Both of these solutions would do what you want without introducing more game-changing randomness into StarCraft 2. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer that; it helps preserve the kind of strategic gameplay I enjoy.


No, call ME crazy! Yes, more than one way to skin a cat. (What a terrible idiom.) I think random elements are no less skill-testing, and often make for more interesting strategic landscapes and game play.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
HachiMaki
Profile Joined March 2010
United Kingdom1 Post
March 11 2010 23:46 GMT
#121
@EatThePat
I was following you untill you started explaining how the player "perturbs" a machine ect. personally i dont think its necessary to explain yourself that much. Your initial argument made alot of sense and i just bacame increasingly confused as you microanalyzed starcraft (which by the way is impressive) i'm no programmer or game developer. I understand the gist of what you say, but request that you simplify your posts in future for the less knowlegeable (ie. me). thanks.
preventing war requires a strategist’s clear sightedness and courage to face war rather than fear risk
enzym
Profile Joined January 2010
Germany1034 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-12 01:17:01
March 12 2010 01:03 GMT
#122
On March 10 2010 06:16 Jyxz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 10 2010 05:47 enzym wrote:
warpgates are fine in pvp. theres absolutely no reason why you should be able to tech while the other player is zealot rushing you. theres no imbalance either, since its mirror matchup. you can just 3warpgate next to your nex and dont take any damage, but if you win the micro encounter you can kill his pylons.

its an exciting matchup where a unit counts as much as in zvz. leave it be. didnt bother reading the other stuff.


Actually you are 100% wrong, because of the auto focus workers if you do the same strat in your own base you just lost the game. Trust me I've tried.
yes, i will "trust you", because theres so much reason for it and i didnt try it succesfully myself (im only #7 in eu platinum league 9) and it didnt work for naz either as you can see in this replay http://www.mediafire.com/?zmjfmk4zman (im being sarcastic here).
i didnt say it is as easy as having your zealots autoattack the other guys workers (or a freewin even), but it is still easily possible to defend if you know the right bo and micro your stuff well enough.

also, to give my view on this a little more cred, heres a quote
On March 09 2010 17:54 iNfeRnaL wrote:
Seriously?
5 pages of "balance" in PvP?
Just because it plays differently from SC1?
You lose in PvP?
Do the same shit you lost to.

You could always just mirror your opponent so the one with better macro and micro wins.
Crying because you can't 1-2 gate tech instead is a good solution, eh...? -_-

Won't ever get some people...

"I fart a lot, often on my gf in bed, then we roll around laughing for 5 mins choking in gas." — exog // "…be'master, the art of reflection. If you are not a thinking man, to what purpose are you a man at all?" — S. T. Coleridge
Half
Profile Joined March 2010
United States2554 Posts
March 12 2010 05:06 GMT
#123
-since they wouldn't let me make my own thread, here are my thoughts?

Right now, all high level Protoss versus Protoss games will begin with a proxy pylon rush. To counter fast expands, almost all protoss will FP (fake push, without intent to end, only to control) proxy pylon, forcing zerg to go roaches, and countering with immortals. PvT is the most varied, but at least 60% of all platinum games center around a Proxy Pylon.

The issue isn't that proxy pylons are too strong. Their really not. The issue is that their too natural. A proxy pylon requires almost no deviation from a standard build. Your literally just delaying your extractors for a bit. It can be canceled at any time should the opponent build base defenses (which absolutely DO counter it, even in PvP...the problem is countering sets your economy back too much while the enemy is free to take this unit and econ advantage to fast expand, while your stuff with a useless early forge and turrets.

Against terran, fast tech builds are not possible. You lack early game defenses to counter a MM rush, so the game naturally gravitates you towards going some variation of threegate. Currently, the issue isn't that people are cheesing with proxy pylon. Its that proxy pylon itself isn't a cheese by any classic definition.

I'm not the type to term anything in this game completely broken unless you analyze it from all sides.

-and-

A proxy pylon build requires almost no sacrifices. That means that regardless of whether people will develop a counter (for all those "ZOMG EARLY BETA WAITS people), it will remain broken in sole effect because their isn't a choice not to get warp gates, while three gates is unarguably the most optimal for all except fast tech/expo (which are almost completely undoable against all except zerg) or cheese builds. It doesn't matter if theirs a counter to it. The build is so optimal that you'll be going to use ti regardless.

If the build has no alternative, even if people discover some lolamazing way that a protoss, or a terran, or a zerg, can completely negate Proxy pylon, protoss will still open in a way that is almost identical to proxy pylon. That forces their opponent to go the build directly made to counter proxy pylons (which may not exist for protoss). Early game has been completely standardized. The only way this could be false is if protoss discovered a significantly more potent and not risky build that didn't involve making a fast 3 gate + a cybernetics core+upgrading. I don't see that happening. . Marine Marauders will completely decimate you, while even given my limited knowledge, I don't see how it is vaguely possible your going to counter 3gate pylon as protoss WHILE SINKING 400 gold on an early expo.

Simply put, Warp Gate research needs to be offset with a sacrifice. An early warpgate needs to made a conscientious choice by the player, 3warpgate needs to be made a choice, not a default. Otherwise, no matter what kind of counter is developed, the metagame will always remain as stale as it is. A rush should not be the natural result of the most optimal early game strategy.

As for the fix, it can be done in a bajillion ways, each with their own pros and advantages...my personal favorite is giving warp gates a slower build time then just build units.
Too Busy to Troll!
Tiptup
Profile Joined June 2007
United States133 Posts
Last Edited: 2010-03-13 05:06:36
March 13 2010 05:00 GMT
#124
On March 12 2010 07:36 EatThePath wrote:
I would talk way too much if I chose to respond with both exhaustive counterexamples and a theoretical rebuttal (as below), and I don't think either of us is looking for a fight to the death, so I'll just list some "soft" counterexamples as something to think about.


Thank you for your well spoken response, but I believe you're over-thinking this issue to the degree where you're confusing my argument with irrelevant concerns. In other words, the arguments you're making, whether proven true or false in a debate, don't have direct relevance to the question I proposed or the issue I was discussing. Also, other than a few of the ways you've chosen to word your points and a few slight corrections I would make to your thinking process, I don't really disagree with anything you have to say.

I'll try to help clear things up for you with the rest of this post.


On March 12 2010 07:36 EatThePath wrote:
Is Settlers of Catan predictable? Is it strategic? What about old fashioned marbles? Is Risk predictable, or strategic? I don't think the way you phrased the relationship between predictability and strategic balance is exactly accurate. I think players use predictability to assess strategies. But more fundamentally, your first window on strategies in any game is examining the possible lines of play, and what outcomes may result. Your certainty then plays a role in "scoring" those possibilities, sort of like expected utility.


Settlers of Catan and Risk are both games that have precise elements that are predictable and, for a person's realistic ability to keep track of complex possibilities, random. They are both, therefore, strategic and not strategic at the same time (considering human limitations).

I believe you're a little confused as to what elements of a game provide strategy and what elements work randomly (and, therefore, outside of strategy). For example, in a completely random universe, where you could define nothing and predict nothing, you'd have nothing for anything to ever be strategic with. Risk management and the "scoring" of possibilities only occurs to the degree we can define and predict risk associated with possibilities and then make choices accordingly. Predicting the risk associated with possibilities relies upon and requires predictable, limited, know-able parameters. It's impossible to ever find any strategy that originates from purely random parameters.

By contrast, even a simple game like Tic-Tac-Toe proves that firm strategies can exist in the absence of random variables. Another game that has no random variables (provided by the game's inherent structure) would be Chess, though it's far more complex. While, in both of these examples, the players do provide random elements to the game, again, its not difficult to see that it's the precise limits upon those random variables that allows us to make firm, strategic choices about each different possibility we consider. I can logically prove this assertion with the fact that even a totally predictable game of Chess, played against yourself with every move decided before-hand, still contains strategies that can be analyzed despite the complete absence of any random variables whatsoever. Despite what you said, those strategies are meaningful and real when completely predictable. While those strategies aren't really fun anymore (obviously), that's beside the point (my point concerning where strategy originates from, predictability vs. randomness, is proven).

Now, neither Settlers of Catan nor Risk involve infinite, endlessly-open randomness as far as the basic games, in the basic ways they are played, is the concerned. As such, in the game Risk, it is theoretically possible to to define every possible result based upon every starting parameter (like the number of players, army count, and map divisions). Every so-called "random" result that could affect those starting parameters (like player choice, card shuffling, and dice throws) are then limited by the starting parameters (like the limited number of player choices, the limited number of cards that could be shuffled, as well as the limited number of dice and dice sides) and thus can be considered a starting parameter as well (as the game progress, you can decrease the number of results, but never increase them). We can then, as you say, make strategic choices about risk/reward regarding every possible result, and I believe this is the point you are trying to make. You're arguing that we can be strategic in response to randomness, but, unfortunately for the sake of your challenge, I have no quarrel with you there and I believe you should have easily realized that fact.

In the very text you quoted from me I said the following: "(At best, a player can only predict random results and strategically embrace or avoid them.)" That is me acknowledging that strategies will exist in particular configurations because of the way they are affected by random variables. Apart from your misconception that strategy can inherently come from such random variables (which I have hopefully corrected with the above paragraphs), this shows that I first stated the point you're making before you made it.

More compelling is how you're missing the context in which my point was made. Neither Liquid Nazgul nor Daigomi were talking about game "balance" in terms of what could be defined as random chance. Each were talking about the completely predictable nature of unit combat balance (hit/kill ratios and so on) and how they wanted to preserve that. They were not talking about game balance with unpredictable variables. The fact that this should have been obvious to you makes me doubt your claim that you aren't looking for a "fight" here. The context of this discussion is obvious to everyone and I can't imagine you're too stupid to see it.


On March 12 2010 07:36 EatThePath wrote:
The coin flip example doesn't translate into a complex game design as cleanly as you say. In your game, it's just a process, not a game. We agree you could also describe Shoots and Ladders this way. You're just flipping coins, so of course there's no interaction.


You didn't make that up as you went, did you?

Simply put, you're wrong. A purely statistical "process" can be a game and one often is. While this thread was first talking about "balance" in terms of skill-based balance (before you came along), a game can also be based upon what I would call "chance-based balance." Under that system, a game designer works to balance concerns of which players are given how much of a chance to win and which actions are given how much a chance to go one way or another. A common kind of gameplay (historically speaking) can involve having fun just seeing the outcome of a random variable because we human beings often enjoy the uniqueness of where things just happen to go. Therefore, the "play" in coin flipping would be us saying that one person supposedly "wins" and the other person supposedly "loses" based on the flips results (or any other sort of "play" you can imagine). Of course that play doesn't produce an intellectually satisfying game that requires any skill, but that's never been a requirement for a game to actually be a game.


On March 12 2010 07:36 EatThePath wrote:
But in Starcraft, if high ground provides chance to miss, the players, mostly the attacking player, choose whether to engage in "coin flipping", and how much and in what manner, which is a world of difference. More than that, once a battle begins, the tactics of cycling low health units out and in, and focus firing, etc, are modified to accommodate the miss chance. It's just one element of a much larger field of interactions. Players have tons of room to participate skillfully in that situation.


Obviously players can often choose to reduce or increase their risk in games that allow such action. Such a process involves skill and is often very fun. However, after those choices have been made, there is no skill involved in the actual parameters that yield the random result. In fact, the outcome of any random variables "chosen" in this way does not matter to anyone's skill, at all. For instance, a person who's going to lose a game of StarCraft 2 (anyways) could go for the "cliff-attack coin flip," win that coin flip, and suddenly be in a position to win the entire game, not because he was skilled at analyzing or controlling his risk, but because a random, miss chance went in his favor. In that instance there's nothing interesting or compelling that this player was gambling with because he, in actuality, had nothing else to lose (and would have lost had the average statistical result been what occurred); all that's left is our simple interest in "how things happened."

The only time that the set of chance-based game balance can sort of be seen to overlap the set of skill-based game balance is when we consider a large body of outcome samples. In other words, a player's skill can rely upon an average statistical result when each individual outcome of the underlying action must occur many times before that action becomes "game changing." In a game that works with chance-based attacks on that scale, "cycling low-health units out and in" and "focus firing" can be quite viable (and fun) as you say. What you don't seem to realize, however, is that the reason for this is because an average statistic becomes a reasonable prediction (on the scale I'm talking about) and not because of anything inherently strategic in the basic existence of random chance.

Plus, even in a game that gives us the HP levels to reasonably expect average combat damage (like WarCraft 3), that reasonable prediction is still not perfect. Though extremely rare, it is conceivable for a highly skilled player to get a string of really bad luck (a string of below or above average results) and lose because of it. And, sure, as in coin flipping, that's part of the game and can easily be fun (after all, it's not like anyone was forced to play the game). But, in the end, let's still be clear about what that result actually is: it's not one that comes from any player's skill.

Now, as I labored to say in my original post, I believe that "cycling low health units out and in" is very difficult in a game with StarCraft's skill-based balance: many hit/kill ratios are very close to even (1:1). This is actually the kind of unit balance I would prefer StarCraft to have because I find it very fun. However, if that's how StarCraft 2 is going to be, you can't reasonably predict an average result for combat damage to be the actual combat damage that most affects the end result of the game. I'm guessing that often, in a single outcome of "hit or miss," you'll get a game changing affect on the outcome of the entire game that varies from the average hit or miss chance in StarCraft 2.


On March 12 2010 07:36 EatThePath wrote:
As others have pointed out, when you have high ground damage reduction, the decision (given an informed attacker) comes down to "whose army wins?" which seems to limit decision making.


I'm sorry, as I pointed out in my post, that's simply wrong. There is no limit on the decision making process for fixed damage reduction. All a game designer needs to do is make the parameters producing that end effect too complex for people to gauge properly. For instance, do you think the game of Chess is "too limiting" in terms of decision making? You don't roll dice and yet people still manage to make mistakes with it. Does that fact confuse you?


On March 12 2010 07:36 EatThePath wrote:
But miss chance vs damage reduction aside, my main point is that random processes can be used to specific ends in design, to modify the strategic topography, if you will. Often you can use analogues, like damage reduction, and often the differences are subtle. But competitive play highlights subtlety, which is why we're arguing now.


Obviously chance alters "strategic topography." (Nowhere did I say otherwise.) The question is which strategic topography we're altering. If the concern of Liquid Nazgul, Daigomi, and myself is to preserve predictable hit/kill results (which is something I agree with) for combat units when switching to high/low ground battles, isn't it self defeating to have the method for preserving that predictable balance be, in fact, something which makes that predictable balance unpredictable?!

It really doesn't make sense to even talk about what you're describing in the context of the "unit balance" we were discussing. Again, as I said earlier, while we can make strategic choices in relation to random chance, we cannot say that "skill-based balance" comes from the presence of random chance, and that's what I'm trying to preserve in this instance. Random variables that exist alongside that balance are fine, but mixing random variables into that balance work against what I want. In other words, every time a Siege Tank faces a marine, in the exact same starting conditions, it should should take the same amount of hits for the Tank to kill that Marine, or else that's NOT preserving the predictable unit hit/kill ratios that Daigomi or I want. If the balance is based on a statistic, that can only be said to be "balanced" on the larger scale and that was the thrust of my point to Daigomi. In other words, you're arguing for something that's outside of what I or Daigomi were discussing!

On March 12 2010 07:36 EatThePath wrote:
Show nested quote +
If the predictability of a game is too simple (and therefore too easy) for them, then that's the fault of the game design, not the presence of predictability itself.


The predictability is the result of the design; it's arbitrary.


Yes, predictability is the result of the design. And? I don't know what you think you were answering in that quote from me since that's exactly what I was saying.

However, what do you mean by "it's arbitrary"? You believe predictability is arbitrary? (Huh?) Game design is arbitrary? Well, I guess it's possible to design the predictable parameters of a game in an arbitrary fashion, but I see no reason why you'd ever want to. Do you believe Blizzard is such a successful company because they just casually slap their games together arbitrarily?

A good game is balanced for fun, not arbitrary whim. My point in that quote was to say that a game's predictable parameters are often more enjoyable when they're too complex for each player to ever fully keep track of. This gives an endless learning curve for players to always make slightly better judgments with (and always make mistakes with). It's another way to measure skill. It's just smart design. What are you disagreeing with?


On March 12 2010 07:36 EatThePath wrote:
There's another thing I'd like to point out. There are two substantial ways in which Starcraft has functionally random processes, discarding high ground things. Consider that when you play, there are things you want to do but which you can only approximately do--your control of the game elements is imperfect. That's why I used marbles, a dexterity game, as an example. You can't exactly perform the strategy you've crafted, and the keen player will even factor that into his or her strategy. This means that when a battle occurs, for instance, the incremental mistakes or brilliances that determined the outcome were in part accidental. Even with two equally very skilled players the unit control is imperfect, which you can imagine results in "lucky" good breaks and "unlucky" bad breaks. I'm talking things as incremental as a zergling here or splash damage on your goons there. We conceptualize these incremental things as part of the melee of an engagement and write it off. But you can view it as strategic event whose outcome relies partially on random elements.

Beyond enumerating all possible outcomes, which is roughly how chess theory has proceeded, you can't count on predictability. So our army positioning, the timing of our teching, our choices of when and how to attack and harass, are all informed by the gamestate as we perceive it, but that gamestate could have been wildly different depending a minor change here or there. Of course the general flow of our games is understandable and repeateable; that's the result of how the system operates, how the game was designed. It would be a bad game if it didn't operate the way we roughly expect it too. But again, the subtleties are where the skillful player captures advantage, and the most subtle things are unpredictable, which appears random to the observer. And both players are observers of the system, though they also are giving it inputs.


I'm not going to go over everything you say here. I'm just going to say that your argument at this point is common knowledge.

Obviously StarCraft is filled with random variables that nobody can predict. The most obvious random variables are what THE PLAYERS choose to do! This discussion was not about getting rid of everything unpredictable (a predictable game is boring).

I prefer games that don't introduce random chance in their basic design. Two human beings, presented with uncountable choices, is interesting and exciting enough for me. As such, in StarCraft 2, I'd like it if the random parameters were limited to just that. However, I know that's not perfectly possible and I'll be okay with other random variables simply being limited. Otherwise, if they aren't being limited then they will be reducing the effect that skill (intellectual skill or skill with speed) will have on the game.

That said, a lot of the randomness you discuss above involves variables that can be known and predicted to an experienced player (they aren't purely random). Sure, it's still mostly unknown and random to us; you can't predict the affect of a butterfly wing on the weather 100 years later and yada yada yada. But, a good player can at least progress SLIGHTLY in his awareness of highly complex variables in at least THE SHORT TERM. These affects are not completely hidden from his view and therefore can be strategically predicted to at least some degree. This then allows one player to always get a little better at the game than another. This involves SKILL.

By comparison, an intentionally random "hit or miss" chance involves hidden variables that players can't even PARTIALLY observe. It just "rolls the dice" behind the scenes and players only see the result. We can choose to embrace or avoid situations with more or less risk of this kind, but we can't ever get better at predicting where it will go. This involves NO SKILL.


On March 12 2010 07:36 EatThePath wrote:
Show nested quote +
Both of these solutions would do what you want without introducing more game-changing randomness into StarCraft 2. Call me crazy, but I'd prefer that; it helps preserve the kind of strategic gameplay I enjoy.


No, call ME crazy! Yes, more than one way to skin a cat. (What a terrible idiom.) I think random elements are no less skill-testing, and often make for more interesting strategic landscapes and game play.


Uh-huh. Yeah, crazy you.

Random elements are "no less skill testing" than potentially predictable elements, eh? Right.
So certain are you.
Normal
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 31m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 538
IndyStarCraft 98
ProTech93
StarCraft: Brood War
Calm 5000
Rain 2185
Mini 511
actioN 340
firebathero 193
Dewaltoss 184
ggaemo 79
HiyA 34
Sexy 23
Stormgate
TKL 156
Counter-Strike
ScreaM2188
NBK_416
flusha382
Stewie2K47
Heroes of the Storm
Liquid`Hasu477
Khaldor302
Other Games
Grubby2772
Beastyqt1091
XBOCT810
ceh9806
ArmadaUGS197
C9.Mang084
ZombieGrub81
BRAT_OK 59
Trikslyr52
EmSc Tv 18
MindelVK15
Organizations
StarCraft 2
ESL.tv144
Other Games
EmSc Tv 18
StarCraft 2
EmSc2Tv 18
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• kabyraGe 128
• Reevou 1
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• intothetv
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• Michael_bg 8
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV1545
League of Legends
• TFBlade1920
• Jankos1503
Counter-Strike
• Nemesis4455
Other Games
• Shiphtur434
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
5h 31m
Replay Cast
15h 31m
Afreeca Starleague
15h 31m
Snow vs Soulkey
WardiTV Invitational
16h 31m
PiGosaur Monday
1d 5h
GSL Code S
1d 15h
ByuN vs Rogue
herO vs Cure
Replay Cast
2 days
GSL Code S
2 days
Classic vs Reynor
GuMiho vs Maru
The PondCast
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
[ Show More ]
GSL Code S
3 days
OSC
4 days
Korean StarCraft League
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
SOOP
4 days
Online Event
5 days
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Wardi Open
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL Nation Wars Season 2
PiG Sty Festival 6.0
Calamity Stars S2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
ASL Season 19
YSL S1
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
China & Korea Top Challenge
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
2025 GSL S1
Heroes 10 EU
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
ECL Season 49: Europe
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025
ESL Pro League S21

Upcoming

NPSL S3
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLAN 2025
K-Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2025
2025 GSL S2
DreamHack Dallas 2025
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.