EPT[SC2B] Missing the Point - Page 6
| Forum Index > News |
|
sLiniss
United States849 Posts
| ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
Now. I thought there was a high-ground mechanic: namely, without sight of high ground you couldn't see units up there at all. In fact, the OP mentions this. This is an almost infinitely greater advantage than in SC:BW with its 30% (I believe) miss chance from low ground, high ground units only revealed when firing - at least you have something to shoot at. Now possibly this increased high ground advantage does not adequately off-set the fact that we have cliff-climbers now (Colossus, Reaper, Viking, and of course Zerg still has OLs), but I don't see that we have a "failing" to base some new mechanic on. And this is a new mechanic. The OP is saying there should be some intrinsic value to high ground beyond merely whether you can see it or not. Why? - I don't believe there was any such thing in SC:BW (I could be wrong), and it did not prove detrimental to the game. Not that I'm necessarily opposed to new mechanics, I just don't understand why there's a problem that hasn't already been solved. The high ground mechanic is more damaging to low-ground units than in SC:BW, with the only offsetting factor being the cliff-climbers. But let's assume there is a case to be made for increasing high ground advantages in SCII. There are two possibilities which seem logical: Miss chance from low ground is one way to do it and the OP makes the argument for it. So far so good; but why would attacks miss a unit that can be seen? Miss chance in SC:BW makes sense because the high ground unit can't be seen without vision; with vision the advantage goes away quite logically. In SCII, you simply can't hit the high ground unit at all without vision; there is no place for miss chance within the already established mechanics. Instead - if I had to implement an extra high ground advantage mechanic to increase the already increased (from SC:BW) advantage - the logical one to me would be a high ground range increase: +1 range on high ground. Like the marine bunker range increase, following approximately the same logic. (Or if you've ever tossed a rock off a cliff.) (It's not that I've averse to miss chances; I'd kind of like to see a damage range mechanic, or miss chance all the time, in the game as being more "realistic"; I just don't think this "low ground miss chance vs. high ground" miss chance mechanic fits in well with the rest of thisgame.) | ||
|
chichom27
Ecuador56 Posts
On March 16 2010 23:50 LuDwig- wrote: This thread is going on a good walk. The only problem is that i fear Blizzard read these pages.. Why would that be a problem, we want them to be reading this. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On March 16 2010 13:21 Daigomi wrote: Everyone agrees that something needs to be done about the lack of a higher ground advantage. The article lost all credibility here. Yeah that's right, line one. For a start there IS a high ground advantage; secondly not everyone agrees it needs changing. A general problem is the lack of a defensive advantage in the game; there are many ways of solving this without reverting to BW logic. The sentry is an example of a great way to provide defensive advantage. There are many reasons why miss chance is a bad solution; it's not obvious to new spectators, it doesn't really make sense (particularly on long sloping ramps) and it doesn't give such an advantage to melee units (hence why ZvZ is so fast). | ||
|
SleepSheep
Canada344 Posts
On March 17 2010 00:07 Klive5ive wrote: The article lost all credibility here. Yeah that's right, line one. Using the principle of charity, I think he was just saying that we should come up with a solution for it. Of course he didn't mean that every single person agrees with it; it was just a kind of rhetoric. I mean he did spend the entire article arguing a position, so that seems to imply that some people don't agree w/ it... | ||
|
Perseverance
Japan2800 Posts
| ||
|
FortuneSyn
1826 Posts
Distance between bases and destructible rocks are the only real elements that currently impact build choice. Higher ground advantage would add so much strategic depth. | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On March 16 2010 13:21 Daigomi wrote: 50% miss: Four shots kill a marine (on average). 33% miss: Three shots kill a marine (on average). I think a little table of the chances for particular numbers of shots would be a more helpful way of expressing these probabilities. Something like this: 33% miss 2 shots..............44.4% 3 shots..............29.6% 4 shots..............14.8% 5 shots..............6.6% 6 shots..............2.7% etc. Nearly half the time, the marine is dead in two shots. Nearly three times out of four, it's dead in at most three shots. Nearly nine times out of ten, it's dead in at most four. (For shits and giggles, the recommended 25% miss: 2 shots..............56.3% 3 shots..............28.1% 4 shots..............10.5% 5 shots..............3.5% 6 shots..............1.1% etc.) + Show Spoiler [basic math] + Let k be the number of shots required to kill the target. n shots (n>=k)..............(n-1 choose k-1) * (miss chance)^(n-k) * (hit chance)^k | ||
|
YPang
United States4024 Posts
| ||
|
sLiniss
United States849 Posts
| ||
|
syst
United States247 Posts
A solid percent chance to miss is EXTREMELY important in SC. | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On March 17 2010 01:36 syst wrote: People often forget that a 25% chance to miss is not random, it's 25%. This is just a confusing way of talking. The number is not random, you're right. But nobody's talking about that, and whether any individual attack hits or misses is a matter of chance. | ||
|
-fj.
Samoa462 Posts
| ||
|
Rah
United States973 Posts
http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23767539452&sid=3000 | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On March 16 2010 22:25 Zato-1 wrote: The OP is well written, but Blizzard probably won't take it seriously. 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. I really like this post. A miss chance will dramatically change the way this game is played, or be unnoticeable at all. Moreover, it is against blizzards philosophy for starcraft of "Depth and skill through design". Its why they aren't going to nerf auto-surround, and why at least you guys realize the foolishness of trying to get them to. A 25% for things to automatically fail, or a 25% for your being repaired siege tank to suddenly die, or inexplicably not die, while exciting, is counterproductive to their design direction for SC2. That lone siege tank can change the direction of the game. I think the best solution is to change unit range. It doesn't result in any mechanical change in many matchups, because its an inherently strategic change. For instance, seige tanks benefit inordinately from this, while remaining useful on low ground. Well, their SIEGE tanks aren't they? Doesn't it make sense that they become more useful then marines when laying SIEGE to a ramp? Not only does it move away from random artificial depth, it encourages more strategic options. | ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On March 17 2010 01:59 -fj. wrote: Has ANYONE in this thread ever heard of smooth random? Every 3rd shot misses or something like that? Yes. (Way to read the thread.) | ||
|
SleepSheep
Canada344 Posts
On March 17 2010 01:59 -fj. wrote: Has ANYONE in this thread ever heard of smooth random? Every 3rd shot misses or something like that? ya ratio vs random. you could even do interval, which is based on time. i dunno if it's necessary or appropriate though. | ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
Marine A "Why are we shooting so slow?" Marine B "Because they are standing on the high ground" Marine A "And that affects my ability to pull the trigger and reload?" Marine B "Apparently" But i think the 25-50% chance to miss would be a much better idea. And it makes a lot more sense in application, beingon the low ground you usually have about 1/10 the size of a target as the one shooting down. All the lower ground unit would see is the high-ground person's head/weapon. And i think everyone agrees right now there is some balance badly needed. For instance atm in any TvT or ZvZ its mostly mass a teir 1 unit and ignore teching, and if they dont do the same u push and win, if they do the same whoever had the better BO wins. U can only tech or choose a different strat if the two of u mutually decide to do so. | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
I don't care what they do to be honest... anything blizzard choses i'll adapt to, but right now I'd like some type of high ground advantage. :D | ||
|
DorF
Sweden961 Posts
| ||
| ||
