|
On March 05 2010 02:32 Rho_ wrote:
Unpredictability (a random event) is key to making something enjoyable to watch. Prime example? March Madness. Would it be nearly as fun if an 11 seed didn't come out and upset a 1 seed every once in a while? No.
Without the threat of an upset, what is the point of watching, unless you're a fan of the favorite? If every win is a build order win, why don't players just declare their BO at the beginning and then decide who wins? The fact that randomness can overcome superior skill and strategy is a good thing, not a bad thing.
so you want 2 ppl to announce their BO and then we have them pick a ticket out of a hat to see the extra % they get for their build to win and we have refs decide if thats enough for the worse bo to win. Either that or we can have macro/macro/strategy come into play after both players do their BO
|
100% agree Geoff..
Gem me that randomness~
|
I'd take things a step further. The high ground mechanic needs to be changed -- absolutely, and for me to agree so strongly with InControl is a bit jarring -- but in general, SC2 lacks the all-important defender's advantage you see in pretty much all strategy games. Static defense is too weak, buildings fall too quickly, unit AI and bunching are so good that choke points and ramps have little tactical significance, and too few units have abilities that reward a defensive posture, with the most obvious example being the siege tank. Lurkers and spider mines, reavers and high templar added a major tactical element to SC1 because of their distinct lack of mobility.
We're seeing Starcraft 2 reduced to a lot of one-base play because it only takes the most minute of opportunities to win a game. A meaningful defender's advantage would open up a wealth of new, viable openings and make the game vastly more competitive and fun.
|
On March 05 2010 02:50 Audiohelper123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 02:32 Rho_ wrote:
Unpredictability (a random event) is key to making something enjoyable to watch. Prime example? March Madness. Would it be nearly as fun if an 11 seed didn't come out and upset a 1 seed every once in a while? No.
Without the threat of an upset, what is the point of watching, unless you're a fan of the favorite? If every win is a build order win, why don't players just declare their BO at the beginning and then decide who wins? The fact that randomness can overcome superior skill and strategy is a good thing, not a bad thing. so you want 2 ppl to announce their BO and then we have them pick a ticket out of a hat to see the extra % they get for their build to win and we have refs decide if thats enough for the worse bo to win. Either that or we can have macro/macro/strategy come into play after both players do their BO
No, I'm saying that that is exactly what I don't want. I'm saying that there needs to be an element of unpredictability in addition to macro/micro/strategy. Sick mine drags, reaver shots, etc make the game more exciting, and they add another dimension to the game.
|
Taking out randomness is fine with me. Why can't they make things do 70% damage uphill instead of hitting 70% of the time?
|
On March 05 2010 02:54 Rho_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 02:50 Audiohelper123 wrote:On March 05 2010 02:32 Rho_ wrote:
Unpredictability (a random event) is key to making something enjoyable to watch. Prime example? March Madness. Would it be nearly as fun if an 11 seed didn't come out and upset a 1 seed every once in a while? No.
Without the threat of an upset, what is the point of watching, unless you're a fan of the favorite? If every win is a build order win, why don't players just declare their BO at the beginning and then decide who wins? The fact that randomness can overcome superior skill and strategy is a good thing, not a bad thing. so you want 2 ppl to announce their BO and then we have them pick a ticket out of a hat to see the extra % they get for their build to win and we have refs decide if thats enough for the worse bo to win. Either that or we can have macro/macro/strategy come into play after both players do their BO No, I'm saying that that is exactly what I don't want. I'm saying that there needs to be an element of unpredictability in addition to macro/micro/strategy. Sick mine drags, reaver shots, etc make the game more exciting, and they add another dimension to the game.
I know but you made it sound like without randomness its just BO vs BO which might actually be true in sc2 since they removed the majority of what was skill in bw
|
I would love to see a more powerful high ground advantage especially for the mid-late game stages of the game.
|
On March 05 2010 02:55 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
Taking out randomness is fine with me. Why can't they make things do 70% damage uphill instead of hitting 70% of the time?
The problem is that because of the armor system units with lower damage could become a lot more weakened than units with higher damage.
|
On March 04 2010 19:55 StormsInJuly wrote:
Randomness has no place in starcraft, never has and never will. This change is a big improvement over the original in my opinion, and gives you more options as a defender if you can take out the units giving your opponent vision uphill
Play him off, keyboard cat....
|
The random element regarding cliffs worked fine in BW, I can't believe people would argue against this. And, as DefMatrixUltra mentioned, the randomness is something anyone who have played BW for some time will be able to take into consideration and adapt to; players with any experience will be able to know just how many goons are needed to take out a bunch of tanks on a cliff and when they should retreat. The amount of casualties may vary, but making an estimate isn't that hard.
Randomness can be gamebreaking of course, as with random items in WC3, but considering positional advantage in SC is all about the players getting in that situation in the first place, it really can't be compared to random things that really do break the game.
Hit% or some similar mechanic should be in the game - not rewarding positional advantage more than it currently does really takes away a lot of the strategic elements.
|
On March 05 2010 02:58 CowGoMoo wrote:
I would love to see a more powerful high ground advantage especially for the mid-late game stages of the game.
COWGOMOO AGREES
/thread
but really i agree with inc, they really need to bring it back to the way it was.
|
out of curiosity:
Poll: High ground advantage system
(Vote): Miss Chance
(Vote): Damage Reduction
(Vote): No Change
(Vote): Other
|
On March 05 2010 02:53 DJEtterStyle wrote:
I'd take things a step further. The high ground mechanic needs to be changed -- absolutely, and for me to agree so strongly with InControl is a bit jarring -- but in general, SC2 lacks the all-important defender's advantage you see in pretty much all strategy games. Static defense is too weak, buildings fall too quickly, unit AI and bunching are so good that choke points and ramps have little tactical significance, and too few units have abilities that reward a defensive posture, with the most obvious example being the siege tank. Lurkers and spider mines, reavers and high templar added a major tactical element to SC1 because of their distinct lack of mobility.
We're seeing Starcraft 2 reduced to a lot of one-base play because it only takes the most minute of opportunities to win a game. A meaningful defender's advantage would open up a wealth of new, viable openings and make the game vastly more competitive and fun.
This post pretty much sumarize the biggest issues with starcraft 2 at this point.
|
In WoW pvp they took steps have RNG take less effect. I think that's what they were going for. Maybe instead of making shots miss uphill they should just reduce damage by the % of what the miss should be. Say if miss rate was 50% shooting uphill, instead of shots missing just reduce damage by 50%.
|
On March 05 2010 03:16 Senx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 02:53 DJEtterStyle wrote:
I'd take things a step further. The high ground mechanic needs to be changed -- absolutely, and for me to agree so strongly with InControl is a bit jarring -- but in general, SC2 lacks the all-important defender's advantage you see in pretty much all strategy games. Static defense is too weak, buildings fall too quickly, unit AI and bunching are so good that choke points and ramps have little tactical significance, and too few units have abilities that reward a defensive posture, with the most obvious example being the siege tank. Lurkers and spider mines, reavers and high templar added a major tactical element to SC1 because of their distinct lack of mobility.
We're seeing Starcraft 2 reduced to a lot of one-base play because it only takes the most minute of opportunities to win a game. A meaningful defender's advantage would open up a wealth of new, viable openings and make the game vastly more competitive and fun. This post pretty much sumarize the biggest issues with starcraft 2 at this point.
Yeah this is exactly what I've been thinking as I watch SC2.
|
|
|
On March 05 2010 03:22 stormtemplar wrote:
TO the person worried about extremes such as 20 goons not killing a tank in three shotss each the chances of this even in 1 out of over a trillion or nigh impossible if I calculate correctly.
It was Idra and he gave extreme examples to illustrate his case and not because there's a problem with the highly unlikely and extreme situations, the problem is that in fairly even situations luck will decide the outcome.
|
On March 05 2010 03:22 stormtemplar wrote:
TO the person worried about extremes such as 20 goons not killing a tank in three shotss each the chances of this even in 1 out of over a trillion or nigh impossible if I calculate correctly.
This. Realize that there will be more "randomness" when there are only a few units firing a few shots, but in a large army engagement the miss percentage will probably be very close to whatever miss chance they set it at.
I really like that this forces you to approach attacking with a small number of units and a large army up high ground differently. And this avoids the issues with damage reduction that others already brought up. That's why I say keep the miss chance mechanic (but maybe tinker with the actual percentage).
|
On March 05 2010 03:26 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 03:22 stormtemplar wrote:
TO the person worried about extremes such as 20 goons not killing a tank in three shotss each the chances of this even in 1 out of over a trillion or nigh impossible if I calculate correctly. It was Idra and he gave extreme examples to illustrate his case and not because there's a problem with the highly unlikely and extreme situations, the problem is that in fairly even situations luck will decide the outcome.
It depends on the situation. If you have a 1 on 1 goon tank battle, then yeah there will be a lot of "luck," or deviation from the miss chance. In an even engagement of lots of units firing lots of shots, "luck" will probably play a very small role. Think about flipping a coin 5 times as opposed to 50 times.
|
On March 05 2010 02:59 Teejing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 02:55 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
Taking out randomness is fine with me. Why can't they make things do 70% damage uphill instead of hitting 70% of the time? The problem is that because of the armor system units with lower damage could become a lot more weakened than units with higher damage.
You can easily fix that by reducing the damage after armor was subtracted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
