EPTMiss chance offers much more depth from an observers standpoint as well, because I don't know who will win every battle every time by just looking at the two armies.
[SC2B] Missing the Point - Page 7
| Forum Index > News |
|
0mgVitaminE
United States1278 Posts
Miss chance offers much more depth from an observers standpoint as well, because I don't know who will win every battle every time by just looking at the two armies. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
MMmmmmmmmm
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
Werezerg
Germany62 Posts
On March 17 2010 03:31 MMmmmmmmmm wrote: i definitely agree that chance needs to be implemented so the player is forced to constantly watch over the battles and make good decisions wrt retreating vs cotninuing. its dumb if you can just gauge it ahead of time and then completely ignore the actual battle. but the outcome of a battle will not change, or is nearly impossible to change. at least thats what the op is telling us. so that argument is a contradiction for me. | ||
|
MMmmmmmmmm
United States36 Posts
| ||
|
SturmAddict
Malaysia176 Posts
Look at it this way, in SC1, high ground lets me defend/attack with less units with high ground In SC2, high ground lets me have a huge advantage if i can deny all flying units/collosus/scans The kind of advantage is different, however, its still a huge advantage if i can wipe out the said units. I think thats how things are planned out in sc2 Instead of thinking "hey, please bring this back so that i get back my high ground advantage", we need to think "how do we abuse this high ground advantage given the current situation of SC" | ||
|
Exquisito
United States55 Posts
tl:dr | ||
|
Mellotron
United States329 Posts
| ||
|
da_head
Canada3350 Posts
| ||
|
tYsopz
Norway215 Posts
| ||
|
Musoeun
United States4324 Posts
On March 17 2010 04:55 tYsopz wrote: Why only 25% miss rate? I'd rather have it be something like 40% or even 50% like in SC1. SC:BW miss rate was (is) 30%. | ||
snowdrift
France2061 Posts
Though the stated miss rate is 30%, I recall that some players tested it extensively and found that the true miss rate is closer to 45%. | ||
|
tYsopz
Norway215 Posts
That is incorrect. The game manual says it is 30%, but it is 50% ingame and has been for a very long time. If you don't believe me go ingame and test for yourself. I'm pretty sure you'll also find evidence for this if you just search TL.net or youtube. EDIT: snowdrift beat me to it. It could be 45% miss as well, I've never seen anyone sample enough data for an exact percentage. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
| ||
|
lossofmercy
United States29 Posts
I really like this post. I don't. Because I think it was just a general dislike of randomness for Dustin that did it. And we are changing the balance and viable builds, thats kinda the point of making a change like this. Nethertheless, I do think that the Colossi and reapers will need to be rebalanced if these changes were to occur (and they will be more effective). I don't think other units will have to worry about it so much. The only other significant change would be bigger use of dropships and the like. Which is a +1 for me. | ||
|
Tompinator
Sweden1 Post
I just signed up for this thread. And i think i have an idea, although i'll probably make an ass out of myself. But to the point: Why must it be a disadvantage to be on low ground, why can't it be an advantage to be on high ground instead? When attacking from high ground, make units have a chance of scoring a critical. (I don't know, maybe 10% chance to make double damage) That would also make running into an ambush so much more painful, because even if you pull back quickly you might loose a unit or two to a (un)lucky crit. It will also apply the higher ground advantage to attacking melee units. I see one hole in my own arguement tho': Some units (like sieged tanks) would make an awesome amount of damage. Maybe you could limit the extra damage or something, or not make all units have the same crit damage? Since this discussion seem a little bit onesided (leave it or give damage reduction) i thought i could make an input here. /Tom | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
Your argument about miss percentage ignores the reality of randomness that any poker player knows all too well - regardless of how perfectly you play the odds, you can still encounter a long string of events where the odds fall out of your favor, regardless of percentages. Consider attacking tanks uphill with dragoons in SC1. I have personally had games where 1 tank has killed 3 dragoons who were firing nonstop, and the tank still had 50% of it's health left. That sort of thing is typical in SC1, because those odds are applied to a clean slate calculation with each shot, with no regard for past misses, and a fresh randomly generated value. Say the miss chance is 40% - that means 40 of 100 shots miss on average, but it's clearly possible for 90 of 100 shots to miss. If Blizzard were to implement a damage type to unit type system, rather than full damage + bonuses as it is now, along with reduced damage uphill, the dynamic would be very different. If hydralisks did explosive damage and marines were small targets, and hydras did 6 damage instead of 12, and suffered a 25% uphill damage reduction, they would do 4.5 per shot up hill, making it far more difficult for a group of 8 hydras to crush their way up a Terran ramp like they so easily can do now. I would argue for, also, rather than being unable to shoot at targets up hill without spotting while being attacked by said uphill units, they suffer both damage reduction AND a miss chance - to provide an even stronger advantage to the uphill units who are not properly within vision. I agree that unpredictability is not a bad thing, in and of itself, but I would argue that injecting unpredictability for no reasonable cause IS a bad thing. I would argue that this system is perhaps more difficult to balance, but would lead to BETTER balance. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
The point here is that these "fit" together. If we reverted highground brush would be nearly worthless. Watchtowers are not only a source of intel but a significant tactical position as they reduce positional advantages in their radius. Airunits are not a real hardcounter since to provide intel they have to surrender their main advantage: mobility. The opening post doesn´t even realise this angle. Many units and mechanics in SC2 make heavy use of of the current system. The OP is pushing to make High ground a counter to low ground regardless of circumstances. A point is made that random chance is the best way to do so without even CONSIDERING that high ground might not NEED another advantage. After all everyone agrees am I right? | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On March 17 2010 05:53 Unentschieden wrote: There is also to consider that high ground isn´t the ONLY terrain factor anymore. There are also brush and watchtowers. The point here is that these "fit" together. If we reverted highground brush would be nearly worthless. Watchtowers are not only a source of intel but a significant tactical position as they reduce positional advantages in their radius. Airunits are not a real hardcounter since to provide intel they have to surrender their main advantage: mobility. The opening post doesn´t even realise this angle. Many units and mechanics in SC2 make heavy use of of the current system. The OP is pushing to make High ground a counter to low ground regardless of circumstances. A point is made that random chance is the best way to do so without even CONSIDERING that high ground might not NEED another advantage. After all everyone agrees am I right? Your points are good, but unrelated. Additional terrain mechanics are really great, but high ground still fails to provide any tactical advantage in most situations, though it should do so. | ||
|
Alethios
New Zealand2765 Posts
Wish I could say more, but i'm still waiting on my beta key  | ||
| ||
