EPTIt's over Anakin! - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
| ||
|
Slow Motion
United States6960 Posts
On March 05 2010 04:22 gaizka wrote: 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 Anakin is actually Darth Vader. | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On March 05 2010 04:19 XaI)CyRiC wrote: 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. And how would that work? Each unit would get first shot 50%, and second 30%? It would make stronger units much better then mass or weaker units. Also units with slower attack speed would be gimped. | ||
Chill
Calgary25963 Posts
On March 05 2010 04:15 pankwindu wrote: 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. That's fair. I think it fits for this one particular situation so we shouldn't disqualify it because of that. However, I do think there are more solutions to this problem than random miss. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On March 05 2010 03:56 LunarC wrote: 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. [1] 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. [2] Now, in the long-run, results will be more or less similar. However, battles last a few seconds in Starcraft 2. [3] The difference between a flat 50% damage reduction and a 50% chance of missing will show. [1] I'm not quite sure what you mean. There are few units that die in 1 hit in SC, so I don't see how this would matter except in the most extreme situations like tanks vs. Zerglings. In any battle with >10 units, the statistics even out. [2] If no micro is taking place, the attacker has a .4% chance to do the same damage as the defender. That's not 4%, that's .4 < 1. Even in this ridiculously small unit count situation, you can bet your life savings on the defender not doing equal damage. [3] The amount of time does not matter. The only thing that matters is this: How many random events took place in that battle (i.e. how many shots were fired up the ramp)? If the answer is large enough (as I showed in my earlier post), then the statistical variance is almost completely negligible. This variance being very small is the reason that the miss chance works so well when dealing with high ground. @Tom Pheonix Someone on TL did a very good set of measurements that showed the hit chance in BW is IIRC 53%. | ||
|
Card5harko6
United States90 Posts
| ||
|
Chill
Calgary25963 Posts
That's also why I like scarabs. Because not only does it build tension, it also shows a lot about a player's sensitivity to risk again. Safe players are going to retreat, while gutsy players will make a sacrifice for a chance at damage. Getting rid of randomness doesn't eliminate this, as you can still make gambles, but the margins are a lot smaller. This isn't an argument about why we need or don't need randomness in the game, it's just me bleeding onto paper about why I like it  | ||
|
Deviation
United States134 Posts
I think the best and most direct fix is a simple damage % reduction to units being hit on high ground from those on low ground. Also, even if the high ground mechanics were identical to BW high ground has already been devalued by: Cliff Jumping Units Stronger Air Units New Mechanics (Warp-In & Nydus Worm) How can we make a strong enough case to get Blizzard to do something? Is it best to just get as many players as possible to write them emails or what? | ||
|
Card5harko6
United States90 Posts
| ||
|
HwiiyiG
United States25 Posts
Although, now that I think about it, reaver scarab duds were more an issue with pathing and the time it took to get to the targeted unit, so in theory that's not exactly random… so it may not be the best example. Somehow, there needs to be a mechanic that is at the same time consistent and exciting to watch. I definitely agree that the current SC2 mechanic where you're on equal ground if you have sight and no chance to fight back at all if you don't is not the best solution. Personally, I have no beef with the miss chance mechanic from SC1. But if you have to get rid of it, my thought is to split the mechanic into two situations: 1. Without vision and being attacked: your units can attack blindly at what they think is attacking them. 35-50% chance of hitting; I'm thinking on the lower end of the range. 2. With vision: Cliffside units have longer range and units below the cliff have shorter range, in order to reward the army with a better position and the player with more foresight. I also like Icks' suggestion of a "dead zone" beneath the cliff where a unit would again gain a miss chance due to proximity/angle of the shot. I think this provides a fair way of rewarding the positional advantage. I still think, as a spectator sport, SC2 still needs something along the lines of spider mines and reaver scarabs though. Thoughts? | ||
|
prOxi.Beater
Denmark626 Posts
| ||
|
Chill
Calgary25963 Posts
On March 05 2010 04:37 Deviation wrote: How can we make a strong enough case to get Blizzard to do something? Is it best to just get as many players as possible to write them emails or what? We don't have a case. We don't even have agreement on if it's a problem, nor possible solutions. It just bothers me a little seeing posts like "we need Blizzard to deal with this ASAP!!!" (I'm not implying you did that). | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On March 05 2010 04:39 prOxi.Beater wrote: Taking the random factor out of the game is great, however I also agree that increasing the effeciency of units that are positioned at a high ground gives the game a lot of FUN depth. My solution would be that instead of low ground units hitting 70% of their shots they would simply do 70% damage. Problem solved. Congrats on reading the thread. /sarcasm @CardShark What you're proposing doesn't make any sense. The presence/absence of high ground mechanic is fundamental to the way the game is played. It will affect unit balance all by itself, if for no other reason than that it will directly affect build orders. Testing unit balance by removing a variable that's going to be a crucial part of the game doesn't make any sense. | ||
|
member1987
141 Posts
You provide no explanation, no research, no examples, no reason, nothing as to why no high ground sight is bad. Only few personal opinions as to why it should be in the game. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On March 05 2010 04:35 Chill wrote: Actually, I was just thinking why I PREFER the random factor in BW to the alternatives. It's because it makes you on edge. If I'm charging up a ramp and I know my dragoons do 0.75 (20) = 15 because they're firing up a cliff, then I can easily figure out if it's a winning or losing battle. The randomness not only makes players consider worst possible outcomes, it also differentiates players by their acceptance to risk. If I'm proxy gating Boxer and he's got 2 tanks up there, fuck it, I'm going in. But if it's some D level game, I'll probably just wait it out. If we eliminate that randomness, I'm going to go in or not in both scenarios, whichever is the optimal move. That's also why I like scarabs. Because not only does it build tension, it also shows a lot about a player's sensitivity to risk again. Safe players are going to retreat, while gutsy players will make a sacrifice for a chance at damage. Getting rid of randomness doesn't eliminate this, as you can still make gambles, but the margins are a lot smaller. This isn't an argument about why we need or don't need randomness in the game, it's just me bleeding onto paper about why I like it While I absolutely agree with this, it does suck for players who are competing for thousands of dollars to have their scarab be a total dud. On the flip side, if it does make the game more entertaining to both play and watch, perhaps there will be more money in the industry as a whole to make up for it? Regardless of whether random factor is implimented, however, I do think that there needs to be some sort of established advantage for being on high ground either with damage reduction or chance to miss. How it'll balance along with the new mechanic of "see to shoot" is up to Blizzard, but please add in elevation advantage. It just adds much more depth to the game. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
Have any unit on lower ground attacking a unit on higher ground just do something like 20% less damage? (the exact percent is up for grabs. point is, units do less damage to high-ground units) I am pretty sure this solves the problem of both RNG, and lack of high ground's strategic importance. Just throwing spitballs. tl;dr: Units on high ground take less damage when attacked by units on low ground. | ||
|
Deviation
United States134 Posts
On March 05 2010 04:40 Chill wrote: We don't have a case. We don't even have agreement on if it's a problem, nor possible solutions. It just bothers me a little seeing posts like "we need Blizzard to deal with this ASAP!!!" (I'm not implying you did that). My bad, It just seemed the threads general direction was that some advantage should be given to units on high ground when fighting those on low ground. I guess I jumped the gun. | ||
|
gaizka
United States991 Posts
No!!! | ||
|
Synwave
United States2803 Posts
That said the argument against randomness in professional competition as having no place makes no sense to me. Show me any successful competitive franchise and I will show you that it includes some randomness, but that the randomness is minimized and can be taken advantage of by the superior team/person from poker to football to water polo. The only downfalls to randomized behaviour in a competition if its so prevalent as to determine the winner despite Large differences in skill, and if it can not be taken advantage of with skill when it happens. For my part, knowing I may not have the units to spot up a cliff when I assault determines whether I attack that position at that time. This is quickly and easily understood. As the cliff defender I understand that killing spotter units even if they aren't the normally optimal units to focus at first could give me a large advantage, again quickly and easily understood. Yet both sides to the engagement require planning and good micro due to the current mechanic. So yeah, I like how it is currently, although I didn't dislike the BW way of doing it either. | ||
| ||
