| Forum Index > News |
Manifesto7
Osaka27146 Posts
On March 16 2010 21:24 no_re wrote: To me this article seemed full of holes, bias and exaggerations =[ Which... you don't care to point out? Other than the silly lottery analogy (which people are missing the forest for the trees on) I don't see where the bias is. None the people who have complained about stating so strongly that there is a problem have presented evidence that there is no problem. | ||
|
Teddyman
Finland362 Posts
This might also be the most logical solution and wouldn't have some of the visual problems of a miss chance (like the sentry beam, how would you visually represent a miss for that?) If needed, this is easily extended to spells for more emphasis on midgame positioning. | ||
|
NeoLearner
Belgium1847 Posts
Good read. All the people who disagree with the article, I challenge you to do the same in the same constructive manner! | ||
|
mercyreaper
Italy9 Posts
I think there is always a high ground advantage that is not being mentioned here, non range units. You are protected from those units 100% and only range units can attack you. I think the high ground advantage in SC2 is a good mechanic in the fact it allows surprise attacks to happen if you do not have any vision ability such as an air unit, scan etc... High ground does not dominate the game currently, it is one of many tactics on maps to use, flanking units such as those hidden by fog of war or the high grass and smoke allow other tactics. If you make high ground better than it currently is then one mechanic will be too strong. I think there is a good balance currently and we are seeing all kinds of tactics in the game. There are much more things to consider than just map mechanics, they are part of the game although they will not decide games necessarily and no one can refute that universally. The pace is fast and the games are showing how people are putting unit mixtures together well along with some of the high ground attacks. I think if you want to improve how effective your high ground is then prepare for vision counters. Get a few air units up there to help take down what helps them attack you. Build a turret or a pylon and add cannons you can lay down creep now as a zerg and build a spore or sunken anywhere. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
ok im gonna write my solution now Chance to miss but also a chance to increase the odds for next attack: Each player has a 25% miss to high ground as a default (start of game). For every time a player hits with any unit up on the high ground his following chance on the next attack would go down 5% and for each miss it goes up 5%. What this basically does is awarding a player who has "bad luck" to give him extra fortune in the future. It also makes the whole concept of "luck" in the high-ground vs low-ground battle alot lower but not a set value like damage reduction is or the concept of 1/3 attacks WILL hit. example: Imagine 3 Marines for team red on the high-ground vs team blue on the low-ground with 3 Marines aswell. Blues marines are called A,B and C. A attacks with the default 25% and misses => A = 25% and misses B = 30% and hits C = 25% and hits A = 20% etc. Lets pretend the battle ends here, team blue lost all marines with an outcome of 40% chance to hit for the following attack. 1 minute later into the game a Thor of blue attacks the red marines to finish them off - he would start with a 40% chance to hit. My point im trying to state here is that the default hit chance of 25% is only in the start of the game, not in the start of a battle. Q: But cant you just abuse this system by making a few smaller units such as marines attack and miss and then on purpose let the larger unit like the Thor hit to give him extra chance to hit? A: Sure you can try your best to do that but since when the marines attack its just random if they hit or not, so the odds of giving the Thor "luck" would be impossible to manipulate in a battlefield because the Marines could hit just as well as they could miss. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27146 Posts
On March 16 2010 18:21 {88}iNcontroL wrote: This article looks strangely familiar...  Don't know why you are sad that people are paying more attention to the problem. | ||
|
Tinithor
United States1552 Posts
| ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
This obvious raises an issue with the current cliffwalkers in the game, with this mechanic, it would be so easy to exploit the fact that you can switch between low and high ground all the time. | ||
|
rANDY
United Kingdom748 Posts
On March 16 2010 21:39 Manifesto7 wrote: Which... you don't care to point out? Other than the silly lottery analogy (which people are missing the forest for the trees on) I don't see where the bias is. None the people who have complained about stating so strongly that there is a problem have presented evidence that there is no problem. Sorry for not pointing them out in my first post, that was pretty childish to post my thoughts without backing them up, so here we go. Well firstly the damage table on "Miss Chance and Damage Reduction" where it states: "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)." I don't know where this result was found but it stuck out to me, by my calculations: Let h = hit, m = miss Chance of 2 shotting marine with 50% miss chance = hh = 0.5^2 = 0.25 = 25% Chance of 3 shotting marine with 50% miss chance = hmh, mhh = 2x0.5^3 = 0.25 = 25% Chance of 4 shotting marine with 50% miss chance = hmmh, mhmh, mmhh = 3x0.5^4 = 0.1875 = 18.75% Chance of 5 shotting marine with 50% miss chance = hmmmh, mhmmh, mmhmh, mmmhh = 4x0.5^5 = 0.125 = 12.5% Chance of 6 shotting marine with 50% miss chance = hmmmmh, mhmmmh, mmhmmh, mmmhmh, mmmmhh = 5x0.5^6 = 0.078125 = 7.8% etc.. So comparing 4 shots to kill a marine which will happen only 18.75% of the time with the miss chance with the 3 shot kill with damage reduction 100% of the time seems heavily biased in favour or the article's agenda, especially when 50% of the time the miss chance will equal or better the number of shots needed. Secondly the "You can miss ten shots in a row." is listed as a misconception and then is proved to be actually true/possible. This is also quite a exaggeration since most the time the situation here that people are worried about is, for a SC1 example: Your cliff on LT has been dropped in TvP. One tank remains and is damaged enough to be killed by 2 dragoon shots. You have an observer getting you sight and a dragoon that can survive 3 shots from the slower rate of fire seige tank. Say you need to hit 2 of your first 3 shots to kill the tank before your dragoon dies. Now the difference between being able to mine from our natural or being forced to wait another 15 seconds for our next dragoon to finish building is no longer comparable to lottery predictability. If my memory serves correct and shots hit 70% of the time from lower ground, then the dragoon missing 2 or more of those first 3 shots is going to happen 21.6% of the time + Show Spoiler + possible combinations: mmm, hmm, mhm, mmh 3(0.7x0.3x0.3)+0.3^3 = 0.216 = 21.6% Maybe my example is slightly biased the other way, but I feel the true ground lies somewhere inbetween and the article is again showing a bias favourable to what it is trying to argue. The point "A bit of bad luck will cost you the game." being presented as a misconception is pretty criminal in my view. As in my above example - that could easily cost you the game. Luck is a large part of RTS and always will be, scouting the wrong way on a 4 player map, seeing that tech building before your scout dies, reaver scarabs going dud, one could go on all day. Im not trying to say luck is a bad thing, its what is needed to add a lot of excitement to RTS as a spectator sport, and to play, but trying to argue that some missed shots won't ever cost you the game? Come on. I actually am on the same side of the article, but find it to be overly biased, exagerrated and dissmisive. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
Starcraft is a very mathy game. The attack range, damage, cooldown, health and cost of units have to be very carefully fine-tuned, taking into consideration things like their mobility, which should be their counters, etc. Arguing for changing the Stalker's damage from 8 (+6 vs. armored) to 10 (+4 vs. armored) doesn't require a huge mathematical analysis, because of ceteris paribus; it's a small, incremental change and therefore the only cases you have to analyze are the ones that are modified due to this change, and how they are modified. Adding in miss chance is a whole different beast. I already mentioned something the OP did not give due consideration to in the law of large numbers, but there's more. How much miss chance should there be? What kind of timing attacks would this miss chance help deflect? Is this change in addition to, or instead of the current "can't attack into higher ground without sight" mechanic? How does this affect different units, and therefore different races, and on which timings? (e.g. would the hellion's attack be affected?) How does this affect maps with a ramp outside the main vs. those with a ramp outside the natural expansion, for each matchup? You might think I'm being picky. I'm not. These are all considerations Blizzard HAS TO MAKE about the miss chance mechanic. Or they can take the empirical approach instead, add in miss chance and see how it plays out. In fact, they may have done so already during their many months of internal testing, and reverted to the current system. Regardless, as an outside source suggesting a pretty serious change to game mechanics (one that has been suggested many times already), a descriptive analysis just won't do. Even though Starcraft has miss chance, Starcraft 2 doesn't; the change that is being proposed for SC2 is a pretty serious one and deserves a lot more mathematical analysis than is given in the OP, simply because SC2 is a very mathy game and you're proposing such a significant change. In order to argue that it's a positive change, you must first make mathematical estimates of the way this would change the game, and THEN explain why this change would be a positive one. As an aside (I've mentioned I disagree with the methodology, not my take on whether additional defender's advantage is needed or not), I think additional defender's advantage would make norush10 types of games where players macro up without any early engagements more viable, which would likely be detrimental to SC2 as a spectator game. | ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Great write-up, love how you dispel myths with stats. | ||
|
nard
Germany124 Posts
 | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
edit: and now, looking at some of the in-depth responses in the thread, I regret cluttering it with this fluff post. Nice thread. | ||
|
Conquest101
United States1395 Posts
On March 16 2010 22:22 no_re wrote: Your cliff on LT has been dropped in TvP. One tank remains and is damaged enough to be killed by 2 dragoon shots. You have an observer getting you sight and a dragoon that can survive 3 shots from the slower rate of fire seige tank. Say you need to hit 2 of your first 3 shots to kill the tank before your dragoon dies. Now the difference between being able to mine from our natural or being forced to wait another 15 seconds for our next dragoon to finish building is no longer comparable to lottery predictability. If my memory serves correct and shots hit 70% of the time from lower ground, then the dragoon missing 2 or more of those first 3 shots is going to happen 21.6% of the time Maybe my example is slightly biased the other way, but I feel the true ground lies somewhere inbetween and the article is again showing a bias favourable to what it is trying to argue. The point "A bit of bad luck will cost you the game." being presented as a misconception is pretty criminal in my view. As in my above example - that could easily cost you the game. Luck is a large part of RTS and always will be, scouting the wrong way on a 4 player map, seeing that tech building before your scout dies, reaver scarabs going dud, one could go on all day. Im not trying to say luck is a bad thing, its what is needed to add a lot of excitement to RTS as a spectator sport, and to play, but trying to argue that some missed shots won't ever cost you the game? Come on. I actually am on the same side of the article, but find it to be overly biased, exagerrated and dissmisive. I'm just going to address this point for now. While the example you gave does show that a high ground miss mechanic can decide the game, it also illustrates another point the article brings up. That is, having a miss chance increases the need for intelligent decision making. Going with your example, back when LT was popular on Bnet and there was no such thing as Iccup, Terrans frequently did the fast cliff drop to punish the Toss' expansion. Protoss players were basically forced to do 1 gate robo builds in order to get a shuttle out. The idea is that if a player CHOOSES to not go 1 gate robo on LT, he's making the same basic choice as a Terran player going 14 cc, or a zerg going 3 hatch before pool. He's gambling with his build in order to gain an advantage. He's gambling on the chance that he'll be able to fend off the drop without the benefit of a shuttle which is where the randomness factors in. However, with the current mechanic, there is no gamble. There is no decision to be made. Either you can hold it off or you can't. That's just my take on the issue. I also would expect there to be some bias, as the article is about why the Broodwar high ground mechanic is better. It's not meant to be a presentation of pure facts. That said, I think the amount of bias is perfectly within reason. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
I agree that balancing the HGA (higher ground advantage) is not as simple as choosing a percentage and implementing it. However, the myriad of implications that Zato pointed out makes the only really feasible way of testing it empirical rather than analytical. The whole article is based on the law of large numbers. The basic argument is that usually the numbers are large enough, but when they are small then: 1) the battle is not very important (such as late game small battles); 2) the players can make the decision to avoid them or engage in them, adding strategy; or 3) the randomness is part of the strategy (cheese, such as a rush for the higher ground on LT). Regarding cheese, I got a bit carried away and overstated it. My conclusion that cheese has to depend on luck holds, but most of that luck stems from other factors. However, it is still true that adding a bit of luck to cheese (the higher ground advantage + small numbers) is not a big deal, as cheese is already so luck dependent. Yes, not everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but if you look at the responses in this thread and the one in iNcontroL's original thread, then almost everyone does. The range reduction analysis is perhaps a touch simplified, but it does hold. Tanks vs Dragoons work because tanks do not have siege at that point, which makes it possible for dragoons to overcome the 1 range difference (dragoons attack the wall from as far away as possible, tanks come close, dragoons charge in and hit tank). However, if that is changed two a 2 range difference, then it is unlikely that dragoons will get any shots in. With marines, the opposite is at play as marines have a shorter range. They cannot use the retreat and charge strategy like dragoons can, so if they have a smaller range, then they will either be in range of the dragoons when defending (like normal), or out of range (in which case they can't shoot). While its true that losing a small loss can put you in a disadvantageous situation, its the same in poker. Losing a percentage of your chips can put you on the back foot which forces you to make riskier decisions, etc. Other than that, I mostly feel that the other points still work. Missing an important high templar snipe could be costly, but at the same time if one high templar can make you lose the game, then you shouldn't be engaging at that point of time, or if you do then you should do it knowing that the odds can go against you. The lottery example is fine. 15/14,000,000 > 1/1,000,000. The limitation of this is obviously that every ten shots you fire add would be like buying another 15 lottery tickets, but straight up the odds of winning the lottery is bigger (with 15 tickets) than missing ten shots in a row. The point is that the odds are very small. Regarding the argument that a game shouldn't be made unpredictable on purpose, I agree definitely. HGA should be added, if it happens to make the game more unpredictable, then that's an added bonus. Specific comments: To no_re: You are mixing up median and mean. The average is 4, the median is 3. The other points have been covered. To iNc: The article is obviously based on your thread, but it's very different from yours. It clears up lots of the misconceptions that people had in your thread, which is its aim. Also, as mani said, the more discussion the better. | ||
|
Khaymus
United States750 Posts
How many times have we been watching a SC1 reaver shot and holding our breath? I don't ever get that feeling of excitement in SC2 because everything is so predictable. Very well put OP! | ||
|
Zajoman
Slovakia16 Posts
The replay stores a number (typically called "seed") and when re-played, that number then reproduces all random numbers in the same exact pattern/order, so you will always get the same results. However, every game starts with a different seed, so every game has different randomness. And people who are constantly proposing new and new ideas, have you actually played SC1 and found the high ground mechanics there ruining your games, or you found them plain bad? | ||
|
SleepSheep
Canada344 Posts
The "luck" factor that the miss mechanic introduces that people seem to fear is so vastly insignificant in determining whether you win or not when you account for all the other skill variables of the game. I won't repeat the benefits it allows since you've already mentioned most of them. It's like giving two cents and getting a dollar in return. | ||
|
Werezerg
Germany62 Posts
why should chance improve decision making/add depth to the game (you always claim that without a real reason)? i think it´s the other way round. and why should chance make decisions harder? they are just as hard as before, the outcome of a good decision is just turned bad sometimes, which does not mean the decision was wrong or harder to make. less chance=more control -> rewards players with better control/decision making chance can turn a good decision in a bad one or the other way round and discourages decision making based on small unit number differences. another thing is, the current system is not always all or nothing. you may gain sight, loose it and regain it, loosing some damage, based on your micro. micro plays a bigger part, which is a advantage. and why should armor be imbalanced with dmg reduction? it is not imbalanced, i think it is just an additional strategic option, so its a positiv thing! you claim that a bigger cliff advantage increase tech/expanding options. but how are you supposed to expand to your natural with still having the cliff advantage? on most maps/situations you cannot expand with the help of a cliff (same as in sc1 i think). and teching is pretty popular in most mus in sc2 (pvz, tvz at least i know as a z player). another thing: The disadvantage is that it would either be incredibly strong, or incredibly weak, depending on the situation and the units. (regarding dmg reduction)why is this a disadvantage? sc1 is working this way very often and its a very important thing in sc1, that the strength of your units differ very much depending on the situation. yes its harder to balance, just like the extremely strong spells/units in sc1 like darkswarm/plague/psi/tanks.. were very hard to balance. a way to easily balance it may be better now, but in the "long balance run" (and the end balance will need a lot of time, till all the additional units from addons are out) it might be better to use a cliff advantage system which is harder to balance but adds more depth to the game. | ||
|
LuDwig-
Italy1143 Posts
| ||
| ||
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
RO8 Round Robin Group - Day 2
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
ZZZero.O181
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
Replay Cast
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Epic.LAN
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
