EPT[SC2B] Missing the Point - Page 2
| Forum Index > News |
Whiplash
United States2929 Posts
| ||
|
cartoon]x
United States606 Posts
I just dont think its possible to change such a basic mechanic and throw the entire balance of the game off, considering it's like 3 months from release. | ||
|
TeWy
France714 Posts
"Everyone agrees that something needs to be done about the lack of a higher ground advantage.." I don't understand how manifesto can love the way the problem is laid out, I myself just quit reading right here. So apparently no one can see what is wrong with this sentence ? Nobody ? This is just an inaccurate assertion, probably written after your whole analysis, and solely meant to refute any disagreement on the issue, it is no better than discrediting it by saying "everyone who disagrees that something needs to be done about about the lack of a higher ground advantage is an idiot". | ||
|
petered
United States1817 Posts
Marines v. dragoons; dragoons having slightly longer range is a very defining attribute of the matchup between those two kinds of units. So to say that there is "no effect" from a range reduction is bogus because even though the range might be the same, you have just completely changed the dynamics of that matchup. Your other example of tanks versus goons is also wrong. In SC 1 it was already possible to place your tanks such that goons can't hit them while on the ground but still hit the goons. The range reduction in that case would matter very little. | ||
|
Phy
United States11 Posts
On March 16 2010 14:20 Fanatic-Templar wrote: Wouldn't that mean that this applies in Brood War maps that don't include high ground, like Judgment Day, or those that don't have any high ground between players, like Medusa? To speak nothing of maps with the starting locations on low ground like Byzantium? Not that I disagree overall, but I really don't think Reaver Scarabs are a good example. There's nothing I find more annoying (when watching, I don't have the skills for it to matter when I'm playing) than seeing some Protoss player succeed in flying in a Reaver into an underdefended base and having it deal no damage because Scarabs are idiotic. Large armies would still suffer a large disadvantage attempting to attack a higher ground force; clearly, though, a large force would still defeat a small one from a low ground position. However the primary purpose here seems to be to provide players with early game options, when large numbers don't exist. Also, the strategical determination for the attacker is less exacting than you make it sound. And there are no attacks like the sc reaver's in sc2, so that's not a concern. I do have a suggestion to add to this. Since you brought up the importance of this dynamic for map makers, I think that sc2, with its several terrain levels, would benefit from an increased miss-rate when attacking units that are more than 1 level below their enemy. Perhaps an additional 12.5% per level, added on to the initial 25% | ||
|
cartoon]x
United States606 Posts
| ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27174 Posts
On March 16 2010 14:36 TeWy wrote: First sentence, catchphrase. "Everyone agrees that something needs to be done about the lack of a higher ground advantage.." I don't understand how manifesto can love the way the problem is laid out, I myself just quit reading right here. So apparently no one can see what is wrong with this sentence ? Nobody ? This is just an inaccurate assertion, probably written after your whole analysis, and solely meant to refute any disagreement on the issue, it is no better than discrediting it by saying "everyone who disagrees that something needs to be done about about the lack of a higher ground advantage is an idiot". Maybe I loved the way things were laid out because I continued reading after the first sentence. It does seem, with the numerous other discussions that have taken place on this issue on the forums, that there is a desire for change. The question of what change is what this article addresses. If you disagree, and feel like everything is fine, perhaps you should write something to that effect so that people can understand your point of view. Nobody called anyone an idiot. It seems like you wrote that sentence after writing your post in order to martyr yourself and create an unfair perception of the entire news post. | ||
|
dacthehork
United States2000 Posts
They must come up the ramp or get sight. Also I don't see this being a huge deal TvT and on many ramp maps you get a huge advantage from having high ground, also the ramp itself creates a perfect funnel This article is too one sided in favor of higher ground advantage. ALso it is perfectly safe for instance with terran to Fast expand OR tech against Zerg or protoss, if you want I will be happy to play anyone on US servers and show you how. People are noob atm and this article is way too one sided, first saying without a doubt there is something wrong with current high ground is wrong, also postulating that the larger army wins is wrong. Please dude I would love to play some games with the OP or some believer of this stuff. High ground is huge, and the ramp itself is the perfect defensive position You can wall it with 2 pylons/supply depots/sunken colonies. Just because 99.9% of sc2 players suck, especially on US servers is no reason to say ramps/highground is meaningless and unit production is everything. | ||
|
GogoKodo
Canada1785 Posts
On March 16 2010 14:52 dacthehork wrote: there is a higher ground advantage They must come up the ramp or get sight. Also I don't see this being a huge deal TvT and on many ramp maps you get a huge advantage from having high ground, also the ramp itself creates a perfect funnel This article is too one sided in favor of higher ground advantage. ALso it is perfectly safe for instance with terran to Fast expand OR tech against Zerg or protoss, if you want I will be happy to play anyone on US servers and show you how. People are noob atm and this article is way too one sided, first saying without a doubt there is something wrong with current high ground is wrong, also postulating that the larger army wins is wrong. Please dude I would love to play some games with the OP or some believer of this stuff. High ground is huge, and the ramp itself is the perfect defensive position You can wall it with 2 pylons/supply depots/sunken colonies. Just because 99.9% of sc2 players suck, especially on US servers is no reason to say ramps/highground is meaningless and unit production is everything. The high ground advantage as it is is either 0% or 100%. With the 100% only coming in earlier parts of the game where vision is harder to get. It also only provides the advantage for small chokes. A wide ramp that we see adding interesting terrain and positional advantages to many maps would be near useless in SC2 so there's less ways to make maps interesting in that way. | ||
|
onmach
United States1241 Posts
I strongly disagree with the miss chance. It strongly penalizes riding the wire. A 50% miss chance in bw resulted in too many missed shots. You were never really sure who was going to win a tank battle. Just because 25% is less likely to occur doesn't make it any better. Sometimes the ghost or templar needs to die right now, and if luck decides his survival you'll end up paying the price when your entire army is stormed/emped. Things like that cost people games. The other alternatives are much better in my opinion, even the range one due to the units that are currently in the game. With a range advantage you could pull your units back from the cliff a bit and engage them piecemeal. | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
| ||
|
mfukar
Greece41 Posts
OP, excellent post. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
That said, I still feel that miss chance is probably the most interesting way to solve this issue. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On March 16 2010 14:22 Vasoline73 wrote: Thank God. I don't necessarily think miss % allows cheese to succeed or fail, but other than that I totally agree. Starcraft is a deeper game with miss percentages Yes, I really think the correlation between cheese and the high ground miss mechanic was very far-fetched, as cheese is basically dependent purely upon build orders, with minor things like high ground coming into play in specific scenarios. As for the rest 100% agreed, they really need to not even dig deep into their blizzard bag of tricks, they have a 12 year old working model of what works - Brood War. All they have to do is simply go by their own design philosophies, and work in the high ground miss-mechanic from Brood war. They lose nothing from implementing it during beta, and gain everything. His article is basically spot on about everyone's misconceptions about the game turning into a "random game" with "too much luck." Good read. Now...Blizzard read it please lmao  | ||
|
Ideas
United States8173 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On March 16 2010 14:52 dacthehork wrote: there is a higher ground advantage They must come up the ramp or get sight. Also I don't see this being a huge deal TvT and on many ramp maps you get a huge advantage from having high ground, also the ramp itself creates a perfect funnel This article is too one sided in favor of higher ground advantage. ALso it is perfectly safe for instance with terran to Fast expand OR tech against Zerg or protoss, if you want I will be happy to play anyone on US servers and show you how. People are noob atm and this article is way too one sided, first saying without a doubt there is something wrong with current high ground is wrong, also postulating that the larger army wins is wrong. Please dude I would love to play some games with the OP or some believer of this stuff. High ground is huge, and the ramp itself is the perfect defensive position You can wall it with 2 pylons/supply depots/sunken colonies. Just because 99.9% of sc2 players suck, especially on US servers is no reason to say ramps/highground is meaningless and unit production is everything. I am pretty sure every top player and good observer would disagree with you that there is nothing wrong with the current high ground. And no one gives a shit about you playing the OP. And I am also pretty sure that 99.9% of SC2 players do not suck. A lot are bad, but there are quite a few that have figured out the game, and from your post it seems you certainly are not one of em. edit: and in case you did not read the entire article, daigomi goes through other design solutions other than just the high ground miss mechanic. dunno why you are saying it is a biased article. | ||
|
Destrel
Slovakia6 Posts
Basically, I am arguing that non-random misses may be a good solution to the issue and describe the various features that could be used to make it work. Some of the features have the added benefit of enabling skilled players to by-pass the system through micro (depending on the number of units, of course) and thus increasing the differentiation between good and mediocre players. This is the repost: Although I personally am used to random effects from PnP RPGs, I know that many people dislike chance in games and in any case Starcraft has not traditionally been designed around chance-based mechanics, for example, the units don't normally miss. Hence, (re-)introducing randomness into Starcraft 2 mechanics might not be the way to go. It had occured to me, though, that misses could simply be made non-random. That means, a 25% miss chance would simply be translated into every fourth shot misses - not randomly/on average, but every time. There are many ways to implement this with various implications for the game. I will go over some of the possible features of a non-random miss system below, though I don't have the time to go into the various implications of each in detail . I will use 25% miss chance as the basis, but the same principles could, of course, be applied to other miss chance percentages. Level of Tracking/Accounting for the Calculation: 1) Per Unit - Every fourth shot of every unit (and possibly every shooting building) misses. Hence, shots by other units don't count for the purposes of whether unit X hits or misses - only shots by unit X count for that purpose. 2) Per Player - Every fourth shot misses, but the calculation is not done per unit, but per all units (and possibly also buildings that shoot, such as cannons) of the player (or possibly the team). 3) Per Game - Every fourth shot misses, but the calculation is neither done per unit nor per player, but per all units of all players. Starting Point of the Calculation: If miss chance of 25% is being translated into the non-random system, every fourth shot will miss, but it must still be decided where to begin counting. There could be a system where the first three shots hit, fourth misses, next three hit and so on, but the starting point could also be different. For example, the first shot could hit, the second could miss and then we could enter the pattern of next three shots hit, next shot misses, next three hit and so on. (The second shot was used just as an example of a starting point - we could have the first or third shot be the miss and the start of the calculation). Note that this is more important in case the Per Engagement or Per Unit Levels of Accounting are used than if any of the other two have been selected instead. Included and Excluded Shots: 1) High Ground Only - Only those shots against the high ground count in the tracking system. 2) All Shots - All shots are tracked for the purposes of the calculation. Reset Points: (mostly applicable in per-unit tracking/accounting systems) 1) No Reset Point - The ticker (whether it be per unit, player or game) goes 1-1-1-0-1-1-1-0-1-1-1-0... without the possibility of resetting it. 2) Engagement End Reset Point - The ticker runs so long as the lower ground unit engages (shoots at) another and resets when it does something else. 3) Click Reset Point (similar to and can even be combined with engagement end reset point - both could reset) - Some click (perhaps the a directed/targetted attack click) can reset the ticker. So the ticker naturally runs 1-1-1-0-1-1-1-0-1-1-1-0... but if the player directs/target attacts the high ground unit by clicking on it after each shot the ticker resets, so it could go 1-1-1-0-1-1-(click)-1-1-(click)-1-1-1-0... Non-random misses could work as a high ground advantage without introducing chance into game mechanics of Starcraft. As you can see from the above, the exact combination of features for the non-random system can make a difference. Indeed, using some of the systems could allow skilled players to work around non-random misses through intense micro-management of the units (depending on the features implemented less skilled players could perhaps also do so with only a few units and some micromanagement). This is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, adding the possibility of high-level micromanagement at top skill levels would probably be a benefit for the game. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On March 16 2010 15:34 Destrel wrote: After reading the OP, I wrote a long post about this on Battle.net boards: http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23766799262&postId=237646712854&sid=3000#0 That would take a hell of a lot of excitement out of the game if you knew what was going to happen. And that would already be too close to the current beta way of high ground, considering you have guaranteed hits. It would still result in needing a bigger army than the other guy for the most part, as well as in the decision making process like daigomi described, in your solution there would only be a "yes or no" answer of to attack or not like their currently is. You either have enuff to kill him, or you do not. And you can easily tell that with the way you described. So It is no where near as good as a random miss chance. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On March 16 2010 14:36 TeWy wrote: First sentence, catchphrase. "Everyone agrees that something needs to be done about the lack of a higher ground advantage.." I don't understand how manifesto can love the way the problem is laid out, I myself just quit reading right here. So apparently no one can see what is wrong with this sentence ? Nobody ? This is just an inaccurate assertion, probably written after your whole analysis, and solely meant to refute any disagreement on the issue, it is no better than discrediting it by saying "everyone who disagrees that something needs to be done about about the lack of a higher ground advantage is an idiot". Definetly agreed. Yes there are good arguments in the Article about random chance but universal agreement is NOT a foregone conclusion. Blizzard made a conscious desicion NOT to include a RNG, (almost, there is still random starting position) all random chances are "playergenerated". The current system greatly benefits air superiority. High ground forces the low ground player to forfeit his Air units most valuable asset: Mobility, they have to be in sight range. It also has the nice sideffect that Terrain doesn´t affect air units directly outside the above example. | ||
| ||
