|
this is a very quick and dirty thread for anyone interested. in regards to 'breadth of gameplay', reducing the deathball, increasing unit survivability. consider utilizing the bw damage model of damage reduction rather than turrible, turrible damage?
its something ive had lurking in the back of mind since sc2 was released. recently ive had the time to alter a map (antiga) to try this damage system.
map download
and the spreadsheet with unit data.
for those who did not play BW, the damage system was as follows:
3 unit sizes: Large, Medium, Small
3 damage types: Normal, Explosive, Concussive
Explosive deals 100% damage to large, 75% to medium, 50% to small.
Concussive deals 100% damage to small, 50% to medium, 25% to large.
during the editing, and during some games with friends, i noticed immediately that this is probably not going to work, or would require significant balance changing. the issue is that blizzard's units in sc2 are designed for such specific situations. marauders for example, logically would fire what looks like a concussive attack like the vulture, but in reality, the marauder is not an anti-light unit. and what do you do with terran who seem to exclusively rocket based, which in bw were explosive types, which means thors do jack-all damage to mutalisks, and would instead need to be set at concussive.
i am uploading the data incase anyone else would like to play around or discuss it, but not something i intend to pursue in detail much further. have fun ... thanks for reading!
|
It is silly, there is no need at all for such a change, stop trying to copy BW, this is sc2, and it is a different game. The current damage system works well, no need to altar it...
|
The new damage system is actually one of the improvements SC2 made over BW in my opinion. I applaud you for your work though!
|
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again
|
On June 14 2012 01:40 TaShadan wrote:
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again Go play Warcraft 3.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 14 2012 02:03 Yorbon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 01:40 TaShadan wrote:
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again Go play Warcraft 3.
your post doesnt even make sense
the mechanics mentioned are from bw not wc3
i doubt you ever played bw or wc3
|
On June 14 2012 01:40 TaShadan wrote:
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again No it doesn't? In BW a goon did 20 explosive, in sc2 they would just make it 10 (+10 armoured), it's just how you write it down, they could have just as well said 10 (+5 medium) (+10 large). If you call it reduction or bonus damage doesn't change jack.
|
On June 14 2012 02:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 01:40 TaShadan wrote:
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again No it doesn't? In BW a goon did 20 explosive, in sc2 they would just make it 10 (+10 armoured), it's just how you write it down, they could have just as well said 10 (+5 medium) (+10 large). If you call it reduction or bonus damage doesn't change jack.
you are right but still the problem is that most units do too much dps in my oppinion which is in most cases not a problem of the armor/damage system but the rate of fire or the too high base damage
PS: but 75% is more reduction than most of the sc2 units have?or do you have an example for units only doing 25% damage?
btw i think explosive does vs large 100% vs medium 75% vs small 50% damage
|
It's still pretty much the same idea. Stalkers and marauders are terrible against light units. Call it explosive damage if you want. this actually something I learned early on in SC2. There is no real thing as a damage bonus in SC2. Marauders and stalkers don't really do extra dps to armored, more like they do jack shit damage to anything that isn't armored.
Just think about how cost inefficient those units would be if they only ever did basic damage without the anti armor bonus.
|
On June 14 2012 02:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 01:40 TaShadan wrote:
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again No it doesn't? In BW a goon did 20 explosive, in sc2 they would just make it 10 (+10 armoured), it's just how you write it down, they could have just as well said 10 (+5 medium) (+10 large). If you call it reduction or bonus damage doesn't change jack.
the damage amounts are more extreme. for example that same goon does 5 damage to a marine. the same if marauder kept 10+10=20 base damage.
|
no a goon does 10 damage to a marine but there are other examples for more extreme reduction
for example the vulture
|
On June 14 2012 02:33 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 02:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:On June 14 2012 01:40 TaShadan wrote:
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again No it doesn't? In BW a goon did 20 explosive, in sc2 they would just make it 10 (+10 armoured), it's just how you write it down, they could have just as well said 10 (+5 medium) (+10 large). If you call it reduction or bonus damage doesn't change jack. the damage amounts are more extreme. for example that same goon does 5 damage to a marine. the same if marauder kept 10+10=20 base damage. You're wrong, explosive is 50% to small, 75% to medium, concussive is 25% to large, 50% to medium.
|
On June 14 2012 02:25 Rucho wrote:
It's still pretty much the same idea. Stalkers and marauders are terrible against light units. Call it explosive damage if you want. this actually something I learned early on in SC2. There is no real thing as a damage bonus in SC2. Marauders and stalkers don't really do extra dps to armored, more like they do jack shit damage to anything that isn't armored.
Just think about how cost inefficient those units would be if they only ever did basic damage without the anti armor bonus.
I don't think you understand the game so good, or maybe your stats are just wrong, cause what you said is very not true/ Stalker fights alot of time against light units and is very decent, also the marauder is ok vs units that are not armored. Also, stalker does 10(+4) which means the damage bonus is not that huge, compared to a unit like the immortal, or even the marauder.
Finally, both stalkers has special abilities which makes the effective even when they do less damage (blink and C shells), so they are worth it even while fighting a light unit.
|
On June 14 2012 02:43 SiskosGoatee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 02:33 a176 wrote:On June 14 2012 02:20 SiskosGoatee wrote:On June 14 2012 01:40 TaShadan wrote:
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again No it doesn't? In BW a goon did 20 explosive, in sc2 they would just make it 10 (+10 armoured), it's just how you write it down, they could have just as well said 10 (+5 medium) (+10 large). If you call it reduction or bonus damage doesn't change jack. the damage amounts are more extreme. for example that same goon does 5 damage to a marine. the same if marauder kept 10+10=20 base damage. You're wrong, explosive is 50% to small, 75% to medium, concussive is 25% to large, 50% to medium.
ah yes ... got a bit mixed up there
|
Yeah, I prefer how the Brood War damage system took place.
|
On June 14 2012 01:29 moskonia wrote:
It is silly, there is no need at all for such a change, stop trying to copy BW, this is sc2, and it is a different game. The current damage system works well, no need to altar it...
these posts make me sick, if you have nothing to offer other than "your idea is stupid and so are you" then dont post.
in regards to the OP. i think you should look at the units role more than what it's attack "looks like"
marauder should definitely do explosive. but again. in BW. not all that many units had special modifiers. alot just did flat damage. so consider that aswell. maybe marauder should not have any bonus/negative damage at all?
good luck anyway.
|
You're forgetting that in bw units did 100% damage to protoss shields, no matter the damage type or the size of the unit. IMO, I think the concept behind the sc2 system is better than in bw, especially since medium sized units were such a minority in bw. The sc2 system just needs to be changed with more armor types and less base damage/dps for units.
|
On June 14 2012 02:03 Yorbon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 01:40 TaShadan wrote:
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again Go play Warcraft 3.
Just started playing Warcraft 3, I enjoy it a lot more than SC2 solely for this reason.
|
I don't really think that the BW model is applicable in the modern RTS for a couple of reasons.
1. New player tend to view the negative modifier in a very negative way.
I don't really have a direct example in RTS but in WoW, players used to complain about negative modifier of the rest system. Back then, the rest system was that if the player fight mobs for a long time, they would get -50% penalty on exp gain on mob kills. Players hate that, so Blizz reduce the exp gain from mob kills by half, and change the rest system to gain 100% exp bonus on mob kill, if they stay in the city or log off long enough.
I think Blizz learn from that and apply to all games they made. It would be easier to accept for new players that a unit does extra damage to a certain type of enemies, than the unit does reduced damage to units. And that leads to...
2. It's easier to learn the game with positive identifiers than negative identifiers because players favor them more. Also, BW damage system has two modifiers for a single type of damage. I find that excessively confusing to learn and could potentially put off casual players in the long run.
3. The current system is more flexible. It is not restricted as a whole compare to BW that the modifier is restricted by damage types. The number can be adjusted on one unit without affecting other units and that make a lot of stuff easier in term of design.
I think if the battle feel too quick, then reducing the damages or attack rates of all units might be a better choice.
|
On June 14 2012 01:40 TaShadan wrote:
damage reduction means the units life longer in most cases which leads to more micro and more positioning fights rather than 3 second encounters with one side totally obliterated
in my oppinion the old system was better
but its impossible to just change that now
you have to change and balance every unit again
I have a feeling we're suddenly back in 2010. The damage system is a lot more flexible with how you can just say "I want this unit to do this damage to this armor type", and the old damage system theory still carries over virtually intact from SC1 to SC2.
Stalkers, marauders, tanks, void rays, and vikings - units pretty much representing their BW equivalent, or a dragoon - do "explosive damage" and it's way clear that they aren't so effective vs light units like zealots, zerglings, marines, and mutalisks.
The hellion is comparable to the vulture because both do "concussive" damage. They're both extremely horrible at taking out armored units with their normal attack.
Really, you'd have to redesign all the units from the ground up again if you were to revert to a static system.
|
Isn't the SC2 system pretty much the same?
I don't get this change....
|
On June 14 2012 11:03 MavercK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 01:29 moskonia wrote:
It is silly, there is no need at all for such a change, stop trying to copy BW, this is sc2, and it is a different game. The current damage system works well, no need to altar it... these posts make me sick, if you have nothing to offer other than "your idea is stupid and so are you" then dont post. in regards to the OP. i think you should look at the units role more than what it's attack "looks like" marauder should definitely do explosive. but again. in BW. not all that many units had special modifiers. alot just did flat damage. so consider that aswell. maybe marauder should not have any bonus/negative damage at all? good luck anyway.
If everyone is supportive and only say good things, then people wont know if their ideas are wrong, and this idea is wrong. You can talk about minerals and income, and maybe stats of specific units, but there is no reason to change the system in such a way, the only reason might be because you are nostalgic, and that is not a good reason. The current system works, there is no need to start altering stats since it will end just with imbalance, and so you will need to rebalance everything which is silly since you got no chance to be better then Blizzard.
If you want to try of course no one is stopping you, but I just don't see the point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
