On February 04 2013 03:54 Danko__ wrote: Frustration factor.
Well that's true either way though!
"Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it only dealt half damage and now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough." versus "Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it missed! Bastard! Now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough."
On February 04 2013 03:58 AmericanUmlaut wrote: [...] That being said, the important thing to me is that there is a significant high-ground advantage. [...]
Yes, thankfully, I think we all agree on that, haha. I think we always did though. This reminds me of a war between cat people in Red Dwarf.
Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it only dealt half damage and now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough." versus "Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it missed! Bastard! Now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough."
Bullshit. In one it was completly luck dependant and could go either way. Nor defender nor attacker could predict outcome. In second one defender misscalculated.
On February 04 2013 04:54 Fuchsteufelswild wrote: Yes, thankfully, I think we all agree on that, haha. I think we always did though. This reminds me of a war between cat people in Red Dwarf.
But... but... the hats were to be green.
Anyways, miss chance makes luck a factor in small battles and rewards risky early game play, while still keeping the statistical advantage in larger battles. Its fine as it is.
On February 04 2013 07:22 Kabel wrote: I need to get the ranking system going. Anyone has anything more to say on this matter?
Otherwise I will look at the SC2BW way of doing it. I will contact MavercK. But I heard rumors that it is actually not a good ranking system...
The system in itself, is good (bw system). But it is a separate of map in map. Because of this loses its meaning. I can be c + a map but at the same time in another -d. That's why I wanted to find a way to merge all the maps into one, but currently you can now combine max two maps into one. If you find a way to unify the ranking system of each map, you get an extraordinary ranking system.
Some guy posted here last week that he was working on a ranking system and was goign to share with us soon.... I thought SC2BW system worked for all the maps. At least in Starcraft--> Custom games (the ones in Arcade are outdated).
Doom. Are these the same replays you sent me? I have not been able to look at them yet because of technical difficulties, just so I don't cast casted games.
Yeah, I was the guy who posted about that. The person working on it has been busy, so I am not sure when it will be available.
As for the SC2BW ranking system, it actually is linked to the mod, so any map will refer to the same statistics. I have not tried it in a while, but I know that there was a bug in it that counted every game played as a loss. That was about a month ago, so it may be fixed by now.
I am sure MavercK would not mind you using it, regardless. I do think that it should not be your permanent solution, as it is very easy to exploit, but it may make things more interesting in the meantime.
Anyway, I will let you guys know when I get word back about the external ranking system. No promises for anything, as it is all in the hands of someone else, but please stay tuned.
Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it only dealt half damage and now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough." versus "Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it missed! Bastard! Now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough."
Bullshit. In one it was completly luck dependant and could go either way. Nor defender nor attacker could predict outcome. In second one defender misscalculated.
One, don't be so rude. Two, you're wrong. In the one that is apparently luck dependant, the defender should then have been taking into account the average or probable outcome, which would probably have meant something somewhat bleak and likely to be equivalent to half the damage being dealt, assuming the chances/effects of damage reduction are the same.
On February 04 2013 07:22 Kabel wrote: I need to get the ranking system going. Anyone has anything more to say on this matter?
Otherwise I will look at the SC2BW way of doing it. I will contact MavercK. But I heard rumors that it is actually not a good ranking system...
The system in itself, is good (bw system). But it is a separate of map in map. Because of this loses its meaning. I can be c + a map but at the same time in another -d. That's why I wanted to find a way to merge all the maps into one, but currently you can now combine max two maps into one. If you find a way to unify the ranking system of each map, you get an extraordinary ranking system.
It really doesn't work like that. You might be C+ on one, C on another and B- on your favorite map (Even this is unlikely). If you ever played BW you'd know that D- is like bronze and C+ is like High masters.
Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it only dealt half damage and now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough." versus "Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it missed! Bastard! Now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough."
Bullshit. In one it was completly luck dependant and could go either way. Nor defender nor attacker could predict outcome. In second one defender misscalculated.
Reaver shoots weren't random in BW they were just really hard to predict. There were a couple of things that were random for instance the time between shoots was slightly random. The dragoon pause between attacks is 30 frames long, but it can vary from 29-32 for whatever reason. The chance to hit a unit on equal grounds is exactly 99.609375% and the chance to hit from low ground to high ground or a unit that is under a a doodad is exactly 53.125%.
Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it only dealt half damage and now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough." versus "Argggh, the hydralisk didn't kill the reaver before it popped back into the warp prism because it missed! Bastard! Now I don't have nearby reinforcements to stop the force from finishing off my third base. I'll have to regroup and wipe out the remainder of their forces and then catch up from there. Hopefully I'll barely be behind if this goes well enough."
Bullshit. In one it was completly luck dependant and could go either way. Nor defender nor attacker could predict outcome. In second one defender misscalculated.
One, don't be so rude. Two, you're wrong. In the one that is apparently luck dependant, the defender should then have been taking into account the average or probable outcome, which would probably have meant something somewhat bleak and likely to be equivalent to half the damage being dealt, assuming the chances/effects of damage reduction are the same.
But he isn't wrong. It is luck dependent because you rely on the miss-chance which means that it is not predictable to see who'll come out ahead. And that is pretty goddamn frustrating as a player. You shouldn't have to hope that your units can deal damage #_#
Or at least not to that degree because 50% is sooooooooo much.
On February 04 2013 07:22 Kabel wrote: I need to get the ranking system going. Anyone has anything more to say on this matter?
Otherwise I will look at the SC2BW way of doing it. I will contact MavercK. But I heard rumors that it is actually not a good ranking system...
The system in itself, is good (bw system). But it is a separate of map in map. Because of this loses its meaning. I can be c + a map but at the same time in another -d. That's why I wanted to find a way to merge all the maps into one, but currently you can now combine max two maps into one. If you find a way to unify the ranking system of each map, you get an extraordinary ranking system.
It really doesn't work like that. You might be C+ on one, C on another and B- on your favorite map (Even this is unlikely). If you ever played BW you'd know that D- is like bronze and C+ is like High masters.
Because of my bad English, I bad explained: The ranking systems are divided for each map. If I have one win and six defeats on a map, are d- At the same time I can have 10 wins and 2 losses in another map. This happens because the ranking system is separate. This classification system is stable if I play many games, equally distributed on each map.
On February 04 2013 06:42 Danko__ wrote: Bullshit. In one it was completly luck dependant and could go either way. Nor defender nor attacker could predict outcome. In second one defender misscalculated.
On this note, are you thinking we're supposed to blame the player for misjudging that the [i]key, final shot of said hydralisk would deal half damage, because they were supposed to foretell the future and foresee being on low ground at that exact point in time, trying to snipe the reaver with one last hydra? Where or what exactly are you saying the defender miscalculated?
My scenario wasn't mean to be so specific about what happened before and after that point in this hypothetical imaginary game, but my take on it is this: Reality (don't you think? ): In both situations, the zerg player probably attacked with a reasonable amount that might have been enough, but it relied on micromanagement. If your forces are pretty even when you engage, it probably isn't easy clear-cut on paper. What you would probably predict is that if you micromanage your units better and haven't misjudged army strengths, you will come out ahead and if they micromanage better, they come out ahead. That miscalculation would carry regardless of whether there was a set damage reduction or a miss chance (at the same %) that you naturally imagine being averaged for players.
If you are going to fight uphill but you think you have a slightly superior force, it is your judgement to determine the risk, your judgement to decide whether an average amount of misses will result in victory in the battle for you nevertheless (and in the long run as well) or whether the risk is a mistake. You could alternatively adopt a more cautious approach where you assume you will get bad "rolls" and only fight in equal or favourable conditions, which might result in losing bases or having to throw away that mentality when you realise you're about to lose a key base, things like that. That would be your choice. Most people would probably base things on average amounts of misses if they tried to calculate everything in advance but be very cautious about fighting uphill either way. That's because you should. They're for area control, defensive advantages; you are MEANT to see it as risky to fight up there and try to avoid letting it happen, try to lure them into attacking you off that terran or snipe the units that make the most use of the high ground advantage (tanks as opposed to zealots, you get the idea).
On February 04 2013 21:11 Azelja wrote: But he isn't wrong. It is luck dependent because you rely on the miss-chance which means that it is not predictable to see who'll come out ahead.
And that is pretty goddamn frustrating as a player. You shouldn't have to hope that your units can deal damage
If you are relying on the miss chance and can try to imagine more than a total of one possibility, you could try to account for both situations, so then it is predictable; that is simple. You don't know WHICH of two outcomes will occur, but that's where your judgement comes in. If you are relying on the miss chance going either way, it is a mistake. If you base things on averages, it still might not go your way. If you micromanage, it might not go your way. These are just similar troubles. Maybe you should avoid getting into situations by trying to control territory and making sure terran doesn't siege up on an imposing hill if you can possibly avoid it. That is the sort of concern you are meant to have in a game and the high ground mechanic achieves that (forces you to be more aware) through either method.
On February 04 2013 18:02 Fishgle wrote: If you don't like the low ground miss chance, don't be on the low ground. That's all I have to say about that.
Exactly.
On February 04 2013 21:11 Azelja wrote: Or at least not to that degree because 50% is sooooooooo much.
As a reminder, I'm sure I already stated I think 50% is too high and while I would prefer the miss chance for the variety, I JUST STATED that I'm not too fussed if it goes either way and I only gave an example to show how I feel they're not so different.
Which would be fine in theory but you can't judge whether your force will kill the enemies because 50% miss-chance doesn't mean that you hit/miss with every second attack. Chances are the battle won't last long enough for the actual shots fired and hit to even out with the shots fired and missed. Either way: You are eating poo.
On February 05 2013 03:03 Azelja wrote: Either way: You are eating poo.
Grow up. I guess me saying that won't help you to though, because people with that attitude never really do.
Which would be fine in theory but you can't judge whether your force will kill the enemies because 50% miss-chance doesn't mean that you hit/miss with every second attack. Chances are the battle won't last long enough for the actual shots fired and hit to even out with the shots fired and missed.
50% miss chance means on average you miss with every second attack. If you CAN in theory judge how things will turn out based on 50% damage reduction, you should then also be able to judge all the potential ways it could play out with different amounts of misses. More likely, you would, as I said, work out the best and worst case scenarios, or just the average. More importantly, you are the one getting caught up on unrealistic theory, because as I already said (in some form at least), you're ignoring that in real situations, no players are going to always perfectly judge how a battle will play out and how many attacks their units make will even be uphill. They can't predict with perfect accuracy (they can't know), on the spot, right before the battle occurs, having also analysed the exact number of units they must also have gotten a perfect count of, exactly how many hits will be dealt (or missed) uphill, so they cannot know how many would have their damage reduced by shooting uphill.
You argue your almost non-existent, yet repetitive argument, ignoring what I type because it is convenient for your argument, as if the game is played one move at a time, one very small micromanagement of a unit or macro command at a time, with players allowed to take at least 5 minutes on each turn, in order to have plenty of time to analyse what the correct decision is, and their own dilemma was if 5 minutes was enough to account for guaranteed reduced damage uphill but not long enough for the number of possibilities with a miss chance instead. The above has more credit than what you are saying, which is very little, because I am the one pointing out the increased number of possibilities while you're acting as if it's completely impossible to have any decent prediction with the miss chance (and as I said you have to make a judgement call in either case).
What do you think studies of statistics, mathematical chance, variables and betting (gambling) deal with? Predicting the odds. So clearly there's an entire world of evidence against your idea that you cannot predict that.
Within even small time-frame, you can try to predict either, but really you would be focussing on micro, macro, strategic thoughts, checking the mini-map and all the crucial things, instead of pausing for SO LONG when stopping to think about whether you will be able to win if they take the high ground, that YOU LET THEM TAKE THE HIGH GROUND.
As I said and you choose to ignore, choosing to judge based on that is your choice, but it's really your fault for choosing to fight in those conditions or letting yourself get into that situation in the first place.
Statements like "you're full of shit/are eating poo" and "that's BS", or direct insults, when followed by very little reasoning and a clear lack of thought from any other perspective are for trollish unthinking people on a site right here. I previously thought Starbow was completely void of people with such fixed, narrow minds.
And the hats WERE meant to be green!! ♥
EDIT: OH! Another thing I really should add is that by choosing to halve damage, you can directly affect the exact number of hits different units require to kill other units and the damage reduction can become biased towards certain units. I don't see how miss chance does this. All units would have the same miss rate, whereas with the damage reduction method, different units will start to take more than or less than just twice the numbers of hits to kill other units ALL THE TIME, whenever they attack. Instead of a global, balanced percentile effect, a percentile reduction actually has an unbalanced effect on the units.
On February 04 2013 16:03 Xiphias wrote: Some guy posted here last week that he was working on a ranking system and was goign to share with us soon.... I thought SC2BW system worked for all the maps. At least in Starcraft--> Custom games (the ones in Arcade are outdated).
Doom. Are these the same replays you sent me? I have not been able to look at them yet because of technical difficulties, just so I don't cast casted games.
yeah they're the same. I actually sent them to decem @ the same time I sent to you, but he was AFK and couldnt Dload them then. :D
EPT
): In both situations, the zerg player probably attacked with a reasonable amount that might have been enough, but it relied on micromanagement. If your forces are pretty even when you engage, it probably isn't easy clear-cut on paper. 
