|
On May 07 2012 22:25 Gyro_SC2 wrote:
I got an idea how to make the highground avantage in the sc2editor.
We just need to put some sight blocker-invisible in each ramp.
I need help because im not a good mappers !
At first I wanted to put the sight blocker at the top of the ramp but I had the problem that they block the space for the building construction in the game :S .
After I wanted to put the sight blocker in the ramp, but I wasn't able to change the footprint thing ?
thank
Vision is already a high ground advantage...putting a sight blocker on every ramp on every map isn't going to stop scans, observers, overlords, overseers, colossi, etc from just seeing over it anyways.
|
On May 07 2012 22:47 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2012 22:25 Gyro_SC2 wrote:
I got an idea how to make the highground avantage in the sc2editor.
We just need to put some sight blocker-invisible in each ramp.
I need help because im not a good mappers !
At first I wanted to put the sight blocker at the top of the ramp but I had the problem that they block the space for the building construction in the game :S .
After I wanted to put the sight blocker in the ramp, but I wasn't able to change the footprint thing ?
thank Vision is already a high ground advantage...putting a sight blocker on every ramp on every map isn't going to stop scans, observers, overlords, overseers, colossi, etc from just seeing over it anyways.
In fact, putting a normal sight blocker at the top of a ramp would make the ramp essentially no different than a sight blocker on flat land, since a ramp is basically nothing but a one-way sight blocker. The only differences would be the inability to build or warp units in on the ramp.
|
United States1699 Posts
On May 07 2012 19:05 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
My understanding of 6m1hyg's goal was to encourage players to take more expansions, with the intention of forcing armies to be more spread out and encourage a large number of low-supply skirmishes and multiple fronts. Reducing the income per mineral while leaving the number of minerals at 8 doesn't accomplish any of these things: There is now, as in standard SC2, no incentive to go above three mining bases at a time, which means to me that the only difference between FRB GT and standard SC2 will be pacing.
If you're already going down the path of modding maps to achieve your goals, then why not reproduce the inneficient mining of BW workers to increase the reward for taking an additional expansion? Increasing the mining time of a worker by 20% instead of reducing mined resources by the same ratio would reduce your income rate by the same amount for the first eight workers, and would make it impossible to perfectly pair two workers to the same mineral, so you'd get decreasing ROI after the eighth worker as each worker bounced more and more frequently before finding a free spot. The result would be that with 70 workers, you'd need 9 bases to have perfect worker efficiency, and there would thus always be an advantage to having more bases than your opponent.
I agree %100 with this. Increasing harvest time is better than reducing number of minerals (closest to BW also.)
|
|
|
What exactly are the advantages?
|
Vatican City State733 Posts
On May 08 2012 00:13 MNdakota wrote:What exactly are the advantages?
There is a % chance that an attack will miss when attacking from the low ground
|
On May 08 2012 00:20 RDaneelOlivaw wrote:There is a % chance that an attack will miss when attacking from the low ground
Do you know the percentage at all?  Sorry if I'm being ignorant!
|
I realized that there are a lot of options to modify the collection rate over time even without reducing the number of Mineralpatches/Gases or their locations.
E.g. Take away ~500 from 4 stacks and add ~500 to the other 4 minerals.
At the start it will feel like a standard map, but as time passes 4 patches will mine out faster and the overall collection rate will reduce drastically.
As a side effect Bases will also take longer to mine out completely.
The same can be done with gases as well.
With my example each base would start as 8m2g and transition into 4m1g over time.
Note that beside the net-income loss per base over time players would have to be very careful with their economy, it would matter more than ever where probes double up in the early game, which mineral fields are muled or which gas is taken first. Furthermore, as the game progresses and patches mine out players would need to keep track of their worker numbers at various bases to prevent oversaturation.
The point I want to make is that it could be a possibility to keep the base layout and early game timings of standard maps, while creating different scenarios in the mid to late game that could favour expanding and keeping bases.
Please keep up your good work.
Regards,
Kazadoom
|
On May 08 2012 00:22 MNdakota wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 00:20 RDaneelOlivaw wrote:On May 08 2012 00:13 MNdakota wrote:What exactly are the advantages? There is a % chance that an attack will miss when attacking from the low ground Do you know the percentage at all? Sorry if I'm being ignorant!
You can follow the link Gyro gave for full info, but the default setting is 53% chance to hit higher ground targets (same as BW).
|
I can understand people wanting some kind of high ground advantage (I do myself) but I have to admit I really don't want it to be the same as Brood War's. Here's why:
In Brood War a unit attacking from the low ground had a 53% chance to miss a unit on the high ground. The thing is, that introduced a noticeable RNG element into the game, particularly when you had small numbers of units. In Starcraft 2 the Random Number Generator has basically been removed; it's not used anywhere save for determining spawn locations and even then most GSL/MLG maps force cross-positions. They do so because the random number generator damages the validity of competition. Starcraft 2 is wonderful as an e-sport because everything comes down to player skill. You can count on your units and your enemies doing the same damage at the same rate, every time.
A miss chance high ground makes it so you can't count on that. 10 marines attacking 5 marines on a high ground could win, but they could also lose based solely on the whims of the computer. I can only imagine the outcry if a major player lost a game though a streak of bad luck when trying to break a highground. I think annoyance would surge through the player base as well, with people getting justifiably angry when you don't quite kill that supply depo making the wall, the proxy pylon on a high ground near your base doesn't go down or the spine crawler remains alive and well because the RNG didn't give you enough hits.
Because of this, Barrin spent a lot of time looking for other mechanics that might be used for a high ground advantage. Armor was one that Blizzard itself looked at, but it disproportionately effects some units (marines, hydras, stalkers) and is almost completely ignored by others (siege tanks, roaches, immortals). A % damage reduction is another potential solution, but the exact number (50%, 33%, 25%?) is open to question and needs a lot of testing. Too strong and once a deathball gets a high ground position it's unbreakable (Terran mech with 50% damage reduction, uuuugh) but too weak and it won't often make a difference against an incoming attack.
So basically, I don't currently know the right solution for a high ground advantage, but I'm strongly against reintroducing the old Brood War RNG. My personal opinion is to start with a fairly low damage reduction modifier (maybe as low as 10 or 15%) and slowly increase it if it looks like it's not enough. I'm definitely looking forward to what good ideas the community can come up with though. 
|
Just to clear up a couple points, the chance to hit was 53% and SC2 introduced different elements of RNG.
I bet you didn't know the time between each unit's attack is randomized, did ya?
I'd also love to see the reduced damage across the board since it basically achieves the same thing. However, the SC2 editor cannot change the amount of damage an effect deals based on validators (such as the difference between cliff levels). This was a functionality that was actually lost since WC3. The closest you could come is duplicating almost all the information for ranged ground units just to add a second damage effect for each of them. Every time you decided the damage amount wasn't quite right, you'd have to recalculate and reset each one of them individually. It's not sane.
But anyways, the miss chance really is a great solution. People get way too hung up on the idea of "what if" when it comes to something random. The problem is people are so afraid of it I think they'll probably refuse to try it. In the mean time, I'll be releasing a range based high ground advantage so that you can compare the two.
|
The time between each unit attack is not randomized, unless they patched the thing each unit has an attack speed, for example: stalker has 1.44, ling has 0.7 and marauder attacks every 1.5 (1 with stim) sec. I don;t see your random factor here.
|
On May 08 2012 03:29 urashimakt wrote:
Just to clear up a couple points, the chance to hit was 53% and SC2 introduced different elements of RNG.
I bet you didn't know the time between each unit's attack is randomized, did ya?
Um, do you have a source? Because I've never heard anything even remotely like this.
|
The random factor is very small, but it can be observed it you set a bunch of ranged units (say, stalkers) to attack a rock, though at the beginning they will be synchronized, by the time the rock is at low health they will be slightly unsynchronized, firing at different times. I'm not sure if this is intentional or a consequence of timing within the game loop.
|
I will do some tests, but I highly disbelieve it, please link a valid test results you, or someone else made.
|
On May 08 2012 03:57 moskonia wrote:
The time between each unit attack is not randomized, unless they patched the thing each unit has an attack speed, for example: stalker has 1.44, ling has 0.7 and marauder attacks every 1.5 (1 with stim) sec. I don;t see your random factor here.
That's the displayed base attack period. The actual weapon cooldown between attacks is randomly generated based on that and two other variables called the Random Delay Min and Max.
On May 08 2012 03:58 OldManSenex wrote:Show nested quote +On May 08 2012 03:29 urashimakt wrote:
Just to clear up a couple points, the chance to hit was 53% and SC2 introduced different elements of RNG.
I bet you didn't know the time between each unit's attack is randomized, did ya?
Um, do you have a source? Because I've never heard anything even remotely like this.
Yes. It's right there in the data. Here's the Marine's stats.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/q0BLX.png)
The marine's actual attack period is anywhere between .7983 and .9858 seconds. That's a pretty significant difference (max is 25% longer than the min), but when you average it out the "randomness" just seems to disappear.
On May 08 2012 04:10 moskonia wrote:
I will do some tests, but I highly disbelieve it, please link a valid test results you, or someone else made.
This has been known by the mapping community for a long time. The fact that no one notices is a testament to the overreaction people have to "randomness".
|
ok, i try 53 % and i don't like it. It looks too much like the original. The players still cannot have a solid defensif position.
I change my map, units on the low ground hit only 10%. Its more extrem but i like extrem exemple to see what is the difference.
name: 6m hyg HA Cloud Kingdom LE
|
On May 08 2012 03:57 moskonia wrote:
The time between each unit attack is not randomized, unless they patched the thing each unit has an attack speed, for example: stalker has 1.44, ling has 0.7 and marauder attacks every 1.5 (1 with stim) sec. I don;t see your random factor here.
That's the displayed base attack period. The actual weapon cooldown between attacks is randomly generated based on that and two other variables called the Random Delay Min and Max.
On May 08 2012 03:58 OldManSenex wrote:
Show nested quote +
Um, do you have a source? Because I've never heard anything even remotely like this.
Yes. It's right there in the data. Here's the Marine's stats.
The marine's actual attack period is anywhere between .7983 and .9858 seconds. That's a pretty significant difference (max is 25% longer than the min), but when you average it out the "randomness" just seems to disappear.
On May 08 2012 04:10 moskonia wrote:
I will do some tests, but I highly disbelieve it, please link a valid test results you, or someone else made.
This has been known by the mapping community for a long time. The fact that no one notices is a testament to the overreaction people have to "randomness".
I honestly find this very interesting, but shouldn't this be in the high ground advantage threads? This is Barrin's FRB thread. Anyway, I wonder if somebody could break a mech terran in the center of antiga with this mechanic. Regardless, I want to see games casted with this mod! (Senex? Pull?)
|
I dont like 8 mineral patches at all. So you just changed the income per mineral patch and you need the data editor for that. But that doenst fit to my view on the positive aspects of FRB. I hope you go back to 6m1hyg.
|
United States1699 Posts
Well, to be honest, I was hoping for either 8m2g with increased harvest time or 6m2g with increased harvest time on just the gas, and possibly an increased return delay on minerals so you can reduce the income a bit in the earlier stages more but add more value to a 3rd worker per patch. Low yield minerals seems less likely to work so it's a weird one to try.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
