|
On March 05 2010 03:16 Undisputed- wrote:
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%.
This keeps popping up in the thread over and over.
These two things you describe have equivalent outcomes unless you are talking about some silly situation where you have 1 hydralisk shooting at one marine. As soon as there are 10 or more units involved, doing 50% less damage (how does that work with the armor system?) is equivalent to missing 50% of the time.
|
On March 05 2010 03:35 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 03:16 Undisputed- wrote:
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%. This keeps popping up in the thread over and over. These two things you describe have equivalent outcomes unless you are talking about some silly situation where you have 1 hydralisk shooting at one marine. As soon as there are 10 or more units involved, doing 50% less damage (how does that work with the armor system?) is equivalent to missing 50% of the time.
Not if it's siege tanks shooting lings/rines as opposed to rines shooting siege tanks.
|
Damage reduction is the obvious choice. It gives a positional advantage without randomness.
I have no idea how blizzard could come up with the system that they have now and think it's better than just having damage reduction.
|
Here is an idea. How about we use the same mechanic as in Brood War, but make the hit chance really 50% (as it was intended to be) instead of the actual 33%?
The thing that concerns me the most about using the Brood War mechanic is that we will end up with the extreme opposite with positional units being favoured too much, thus limiting the options players have in terms of units. In fact, that is what happened with Brood War. Since a positional advantage was such an enormous factor, Lurkers and Tanks ended up playing a substantial role, thus very frequently overshadowing other options. So if the Brood War miss chance is to be implemented, then the chance to hit should at least be somewhat increased.
|
There is much much more randomness caused by fog of war, the only question is if miss chance adds enough to find the extra randomness worth it.
|
On March 05 2010 03:44 Tom Phoenix wrote:
Here is an idea. How about we use the same mechanic as in Brood War, but make the hit chance really 50% (as it was intended to be) instead of the actual 33%?
The thing that concerns me the most about using the Brood War mechanic is that we will end up with the extreme opposite with positional units being favoured too much, thus limiting the options players have in terms of units. In fact, that is what happened with Brood War. Since a positional advantage was such an enormous factor, Lurkers and Tanks ended up playing a substantial role, thus very frequently overshadowing other options. So if the Brood War miss chance is to be implemented, then the chance to hit should at least be somewhat increased.
I am in 80% agreement with this, with a 10% chance to disagree and 10% agreement reduction.
|
You just have to adapt.
Honestly, I like it because it makes destroying terran walls with obs really easy...
But at the same time, fighting cliffed sieges is such a pain...
|
Calgary25981 Posts
Agreed and the randomness argued is ridiculous. Controlled randomness is great in competitive games.
|
On March 05 2010 03:35 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 03:16 Undisputed- wrote:
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%. This keeps popping up in the thread over and over. These two things you describe have equivalent outcomes unless you are talking about some silly situation where you have 1 hydralisk shooting at one marine. As soon as there are 10 or more units involved, doing 50% less damage (how does that work with the armor system?) is equivalent to missing 50% of the time.
No 50% miss chance is not the same as 50% damage reduction. This is due to how units cannot attack anymore once they are dead. If two hydralisks are battling in out on two different levels, a 50% damage reduction means that the one on bottom will certainly lose, while a 50% chance of missing will give the unit on the top a higher chance of winning.
Now, in the long-run, results will be more or less similar. However, battles last a few seconds in Starcraft 2. The difference between a flat 50% damage reduction and a 50% chance of missing will show.
|
I vote range adjustment. +1 for high-ground units and -1 for low-ground.
|
On March 05 2010 03:56 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2010 03:35 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On March 05 2010 03:16 Undisputed- wrote:
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%. This keeps popping up in the thread over and over. These two things you describe have equivalent outcomes unless you are talking about some silly situation where you have 1 hydralisk shooting at one marine. As soon as there are 10 or more units involved, doing 50% less damage (how does that work with the armor system?) is equivalent to missing 50% of the time. No 50% miss chance is not the same as 50% damage reduction. This is due to how units cannot attack anymore once they are dead. If two hydralisks are battling in out on two different levels, a 50% damage reduction means that the one on bottom will certainly lose, while a 50% chance of missing will give the unit on the top a higher chance of winning. Now, in the long-run, results will be more or less similar. However, battles last a few seconds in Starcraft 2. The difference between a flat 50% damage reduction and a 50% chance of missing will show.
It's not about how long battles last per se, but about many many shots are fired within that time frame. I can see quite a few shots fired in a 10-20 sec battle.
Some cool statistics dude needs to come in here and make a few standard deviation graphs or whatever and we can get a better idea of what amount of randomness we're dealing with (I can't do it cause I suck at math).
|
You mean there was no cliff management in Sc1? Wtf
|
On March 05 2010 03:56 Chill wrote:
Agreed and the randomness argued is ridiculous. Controlled randomness is great in competitive games.
Yep
|
Most people seem to agree that the current system should be scrapped, but I'm not understanding the arguments about why bringing back the chance to miss is bad.
Why is the randomness a bad thing? "Because it's random!" Okay, that seems slightly circular, but whatev-- "Luck is terrible and lets worse players win!" I don't really see why the better player is attacking uphill in the first place.. "Why should someone win the game by getting lucky a few times, then?" Because it's a game of imperfect information to begin with and luck will always be a factor, and games won't be completely decided by miss chance anyway. "Well if you want randomness so much, why don't you just make the players roll some dice on the side too!" I'm not following you here. "Damage reduction would be pretty much functionally identical." So why change to that, again? "Because it's random!" You know, I'm really starting to hate you, voice in my head.
Maybe it's frustrating if you're a player, but it's certainly more entertaining for spectators than the other alternatives.
|
United States4471 Posts
1. The high ground mechanic clearly needs to be changed from what it is. Right now you have one of two extreme situations, (a) substantial advantage to high-ground units, and substantial disadvantage to low-ground units, and (b) complete even footing between high-ground and low-ground. As others have said, this basically makes fighting uphill impossible or too easy, when it should be somewhere in the middle.
2. Straight damage reduction could have some serious issues because of the way unit armor factors in. I'm no good at the math of SC2, but it seems like there could be situations where some high armor units could become practically unkillable by anything but the hardest-hitting units because most units' damage output her shot would be practically nothing. If this isn't true, then I'm all for straight damage-reduction because it would provide a non-random high-ground advantage.
3. Random miss % isn't as bad as it seems, nor is randomness in general in a strategic game. As long as the randomness is predictable, i.e. randomness of getting cards in poker, then superior skill would still win almost every time. Players would deal with it the same way they did during SC/BW, by gauging whether they're unit advantage is strong enough, or the potential gain from succeeding in killing a high-ground unit is great enough, to risk the chance that the shot(s) may miss. There wouldn't be certainty, but there would be a reasonable amount of it to make an informed and strategic/tactical decision.
Note: I don't think SC2 is intended to be as pure a strategic game as possible. It's a RTS, not a turn-based strategy game, so there can be a certain amount of non-strategic elements to it as well. Sacrificing a relatively insignificant amount of predictability for a significant amount of suspense and fun in both playing and watching the game is well worth it in my opinion. We don't need anything as crazy as the SC/BW reaver scarab mechanic, but a miss % wouldn't cause us to lose too much while giving us a lot more.
|
On March 05 2010 03:56 Chill wrote:
Agreed and the randomness argued is ridiculous. Controlled randomness is great in competitive games.
I would agree with this only if it's more prevalent throughout the game, e.g. if there was some element of randomness to the amount of damage on every attack. But in BW you have everything else in the whole game governed by very specific exact damage values, except for this one positional situation.
|
/signed
but i would make a penmality on the damage not the random hit thing..
|
United States4471 Posts
Oh, and something to consider would be to make the miss % go down with successive shots, i.e. 50% with first shot, 30% with second or third shot, and 10% for all shots thereafter. Defenders would still get a significant advantage for having the high-ground advantage, but attackers would be able to slowly overcome that advantage to some degree, while never eliminating it entirely.
|
All that factors into it is that as the number of shots in a given fight grows, 50% miss aproaches 50% damage reduction (if you ignore armor in the calculations).
In a fight involving a small number of shots (i.e just a few units with normal attackspeed (think ~2v2 hydras) or some more units with slower attackspeed (think ~5v5 tanks)) the randomness of 50% miss has a chance to affect the outcome, the chance increases as the numbers of shots needed to kill the enemy goes down.
Before, I always felt that randomness was a bad thing for competetive gaming, but then I realized that a perfectly predictable game is much less entertaining to watch, as others have stated.. The reaver scarab is a great example of this.
Edit: Slow Motion was faster than me -_-
|
I always thought that the way blizzard balanced this out was with the line of sight. As mentioned before, other games give different bonuses for high ground, plus range, plus damage, etc. Personally I don't mind the change, I haven't played sc2 yet though.
One question, does the trees still provide cover like they did in sc??
btw, I haven't seen episode III, thanks for the spoiler XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
