|
Actually, I think having some randomness, especially in attacking highground is really good for strategy.
It adds to the :"Do I or don't I" attack into this position kind of thing.
Warcraft 3 system would be good though. The current High Ground Advantage isn't really an advantage at all after about 5 minutes.
Yes, I think there are so many areas where Warcraft 3 is still more ahead than Starcraft 2, mostly because the designers has almost exclusively looked on SC:BW for inspiration, Warcraft 3 has been very much neglected.
In WC3 there even was a system so that when you've missed on high ground, meaning unfavourable for you, it will be even harder to miss on the next attack and on executive attacks it almost becomes impossible to not hit on high ground.
However I think this only works for a game that already has so much random stuff in the game, it kinda balances out, since larger scales statistics on randomness will always kinda even out in the end.
Try -1 range to units shooting from the low ground. Maybe that helps and has no decimal issues
I think this is the best idea yet, I've seen it in other threads aswell, maybe even give units on high ground a +1 range, if the advantage isn't strong enough. This along with the needed vision to fight high ground, I think would create some very interesting strategical scenarios.
|
I would like to see this change with a percentage of the damage cut.
I think it would promote more harassment and macro at the same time through the new meta that would evolve.
|
I really dislike random factors in RTS game.
A non chance based damage would let a progamer make his decisions more clearly and can predict the outcome a bit better.
I think in SC2, the only chance where I really had good high ground advantage is the ability to hit good fungals and make a come back.
|
No. Attacks hitting or missing based on luck are BS and should not be implemented in SC. It would only encourage turtling even more, and units with a low range attack (basically all of zerg's viable units except the Hydra) wouldn't really benefit from this. Siege tanks and Colossi would benefit the most.
|
Another simple idea : lower the sight range of flying units over high ground when they are on the low ground.
This would prevent the flying units to be safe from the units on the high ground and allow the high ground player to snipe the units giving vision. This would not solve the problem of scans (if it is a problem)
I have to say that I like a lot how high ground advantage is a vision advantage in SC2, but I dislike that in the later part of the game this advantage is not a concern anymore due to the number of flying units in each composition.
|
On January 23 2013 23:40 Henk wrote:
No. Attacks hitting or missing based on luck are BS and should not be implemented in SC. It would only encourage turtling even more, and units with a low range attack (basically all of zerg's viable units except the Hydra) wouldn't really benefit from this. Siege tanks and Colossi would benefit the most.
It wont encourage turtling because if someone plays too defensive waiting to be attacked on a high ground position the other player can get map control, better economy, better tech. Also drops, nydus or small distracting attacks would become more important.
Nobody is going to throw a deathball to another deathball in a defensive position with new high ground mechanics.
|
Do a -1 upgrade for attacking high ground. Say the attackers have no upgrades, subtract what +1 upgrade would give from the attack. This would be huge for units like marines where their mass helps to create their damage potential. I don't know how this could be coded, but I imagine it's possible one way or another.
|
Warcraft 3 has a brilliant "luck" system where the more often a unit misses the higher its chance of hitting gets. Basically, this is how its Pseudo Random Distribution works:
Rather than using a static percentage, the probability is first set to a small initial value, then gradually increased with each consecutive attack for which the modifier does not occur. The probability then drops back to the initial value when the attack modifier does apply. As a result, attack modifiers tend to occur non-consecutively and at more regular intervals.
That means that an effect with a 25% chance to occur actually only has a 8.5% chance to occur on 1st hit. Then the 2nd hit has a 17% chance, the third 25.5% and so on. Eventually the probability hits 100% and is guaranteed. But once the effect triggers the chance is reset to 8.5%. Overall this averages out to ~25% but it’s less likely to happen multiple times in a row, or to not happen for an extremely long time.
It's kinda sad to still see people who don't know how Warcraft 3 handled things because in my opinion it still does a ton of mechanics better than SC2 even now. Of course you can still argue there should be no randomness in SC2 at all, that's fine, but saying WC3 was overly based on luck is just wrong.
And another thing - why limit terrain (dis)advantage to cliffs? Dawn of War let mappers define areas of cover, including for example "negative cover" which slowed units and made them take more damage. Something along those lines could definitely be explored in SC2 as well.
|
It doesn't *have* to be high ground--but there definitely has to be terrain advantages for things other than looking around the map.
And say we *cant* be allowed to have any other terrain advantage than SC2's vision rules--then fucking follow through with that. Add an extra 100min/100gas to all units that can spot high ground (other than overlords), then reduce their vision so you need them to almost be on top of the cliff to see what's up there.
If you want sight restrictions to be a terrain advantage--let it be a fucking advantage. Make it costly to spot up cliffs, make it easy to snipe flying units trying to spot up the cliff, make it so that you can't simply bring medivacs with your bioball and suddenly there is no cliff limitations.
And this is true for any terrain advantage we put into any game--it's not simply adding tha feature to the game, but also incorporating that feature as part of the design parameters of the game as well.
|
On January 23 2013 19:51 lodro wrote:
I agree it would be interesting to try some variation of this in beta
Subtracting damage (either -1 or -%) from each attack from lowground seems simple enough, but would affect some races / compositions more than others. Same for adding damage to highground, but reversed.
Either solution would affect high attack rate units like marines more than slow high damage units (e.g. stalker, immortal, marauder, tank). derrr
As mentioned above a flat range reduction on lowground will adversely affect short range units (i.e. zerg).
I think it needs testing. Obviously the above balance issues could be worked with, maybe by giving damage bonus to high-ground that is balanced for different units to give similar dps boost across races.
Pretty simple to solve. Each unit should have a low ground penalty that reduces their overall DPS by X%. So every unit could lose 5% of their DPS or whatever. This could be done by reducing both attack speed and damage and varying amounts for each unit.
As you said, Marines would lose far more than a Siege Tank from a simple -1 or a % decrease, but when you consider overall DPS then it can be done easily.
|
Starcraft II definitely needs some sort of high ground advantage, the current solution just doesn't cut it. More ability to use terrain to your favor would increase the skillcap a great deal, and most importantly it would increase the defenders advantage which would lead to less insta GG scenarios after losing a fight.
|
Great read. I would definitely be interested in this idea. Might be a little easier to hold thirds against roaches ^^
|
Stronger ranged and longranged units. Sounds alot like "better deathballs", to be quite honest. Though it would also allow for interesting Terrain features.
I don't think that lack of highground advantage is "holding positional play back". I rather believe it is an economical issue that allows players to overrun a well-positioned army with freshly generated units, which makes bigger positional play weak. You simply cannot stay in locations for a long time. Your opponent will simply create as many units as your army has in just 1min...
|
On January 24 2013 00:49 Trotim wrote:
Warcraft 3 has a brilliant "luck" system where the more often a unit misses the higher its chance of hitting gets. Basically, this is how its Pseudo Random Distribution works:
Rather than using a static percentage, the probability is first set to a small initial value, then gradually increased with each consecutive attack for which the modifier does not occur. The probability then drops back to the initial value when the attack modifier does apply. As a result, attack modifiers tend to occur non-consecutively and at more regular intervals.
That means that an effect with a 25% chance to occur actually only has a 8.5% chance to occur on 1st hit. Then the 2nd hit has a 17% chance, the third 25.5% and so on. Eventually the probability hits 100% and is guaranteed. But once the effect triggers the chance is reset to 8.5%. Overall this averages out to ~25% but it’s less likely to happen multiple times in a row, or to not happen for an extremely long time.
It's kinda sad to still see people who don't know how Warcraft 3 handled things because in my opinion it still does a ton of mechanics better than SC2 even now. Of course you can still argue there should be no randomness in SC2 at all, that's fine, but saying WC3 was overly based on luck is just wrong.
And another thing - why limit terrain (dis)advantage to cliffs? Dawn of War let mappers define areas of cover, including for example "negative cover" which slowed units and made them take more damage. Something along those lines could definitely be explored in SC2 as well.
I like this idea, but replacing the miss rate, with a slightly lower damage output. So rather then have a 25% chance of missing, you have a 25% chance of doing 70% damage. Having a unit completely miss its target is a little too random.
|
On January 24 2013 02:02 nottapro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2013 00:49 Trotim wrote:
Warcraft 3 has a brilliant "luck" system where the more often a unit misses the higher its chance of hitting gets. Basically, this is how its Pseudo Random Distribution works:
Rather than using a static percentage, the probability is first set to a small initial value, then gradually increased with each consecutive attack for which the modifier does not occur. The probability then drops back to the initial value when the attack modifier does apply. As a result, attack modifiers tend to occur non-consecutively and at more regular intervals.
That means that an effect with a 25% chance to occur actually only has a 8.5% chance to occur on 1st hit. Then the 2nd hit has a 17% chance, the third 25.5% and so on. Eventually the probability hits 100% and is guaranteed. But once the effect triggers the chance is reset to 8.5%. Overall this averages out to ~25% but it’s less likely to happen multiple times in a row, or to not happen for an extremely long time.
It's kinda sad to still see people who don't know how Warcraft 3 handled things because in my opinion it still does a ton of mechanics better than SC2 even now. Of course you can still argue there should be no randomness in SC2 at all, that's fine, but saying WC3 was overly based on luck is just wrong.
And another thing - why limit terrain (dis)advantage to cliffs? Dawn of War let mappers define areas of cover, including for example "negative cover" which slowed units and made them take more damage. Something along those lines could definitely be explored in SC2 as well. I like this idea, but replacing the miss rate, with a slightly lower damage output. So rather then have a 25% chance of missing, you have a 25% chance of doing 70% damage. Having a unit completely miss its target is a little too random.
The problem with 70% of damage or something is that most damages like the marine is 5 or something and so its hard to give the same advantage to all units. A miss percentage would be equal for all units though.
|
I feel like if blizzard were to buff high ground, zerg would have to recieve some sort of advantage for taking the high ground. Maybe a speed bonus for moving down a ramp for an ambush.
|
I completely agree and wanted to write sth like this for a long time now, thx Gfire 
Ramps are mostly just chokes, the highground/lowground part really doesn't matter all that much past earlygame.
This is very limiting for map design, chokes can be good for either side of the choke, highground is only good for the army on the highground. Also some units/abilities (forcefield) can abuse chokes a lot.
I would just love to make meaningful terrain without using chokes, and thats what a good highground advantage would be perfect for.
More cost efficient defense of certain points with the added highground advantage would also discourage deathball play and make more spread out base design possible.
edit: And I wouldn't mind a miss chance. I don't think this would make it so random that it significantly lowers the chance for the better player to win.
|
It's funny how people are bringing up points that everyone mentioned before sc2 came out. I hope they seriously look at high ground properly this time.
|
It's very erroneous to say that having a chance to miss is when firing uphill is "random." In War3, where there was more emphasis placed on the efficacy of individual units, "random" could be a word that might be closer to the truth, but in SC2 units generally make many more attacks over the course of their lifetime so it doesn't really apply. Here are a few reasons:
If your miss rate of firing uphill is 25% in SC2, you are going to experience roughly a 25% reduction in damage done over the course of a game if all of your units only ever fire uphill. Extrapolate that a little bit, and the real % of damage reduction is less than 25% because you're not, in fact, always firing uphill.
There is no need to nerf damage done when firing uphill; overall damage is already nerfed if a chance to miss when firing uphill exists.
Say that in the early game a stalker fires uphill at a pack of 3 marines who are fleeing back to their natural, is targetting a marine who has 5 hps, and misses. That is an isolated random event, but it's not "random" in terms of the game's flow. It's really a small piece in the overall game that translates to damage reduction imposed on a player who fires uphill. Going into the game, both players are aware of the penalty and what the effects of the penalty are; there's no surprise involved.
I am also in favor of a high ground penalty; I think it solves a lot of awkwardness about the game. These were just my points about the "randomness" of firing uphill. It bugs me when people characterize firing uphill as random, when it's really only random in the most base sense of the word.
|
I made a similar topic yesterday morning, but it didnt seem to get much attention at all. Hope you get some more notice, as it stands maps are just chokes everywhere.
if you want to see the arguements i made, though it can be TLDR'd to saying ramps = chokes
+ Show Spoiler +http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7708811684
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
