EPTThis is a really bad change. 50% reduction is ok but I really liked the 50% random of BW for very tense situations: ]
It's over Anakin! - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
red.venom
United States4651 Posts
This is a really bad change. 50% reduction is ok but I really liked the 50% random of BW for very tense situations: ] | ||
|
lu_cid
United States428 Posts
| ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
Except in cases like siege tanks where an extra hit might be very important (in which case random miss % can be very frustrating), factoring in an extra hit shouldn't make a decision to attack a ramp suddenly more obvious. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On March 05 2010 08:02 Zanno wrote: All you'd need to do to deal with that is treat the RNG here as a deck of cards, instead of a dice roll. If you wanted it at 50% after exactly X attacks you'll have hit a 50/50 ratio. The more cards you put in this "hit/miss" deck the more stringy it can possibly be. Anywhere from 8-20 would probably fit well with how fast the SC rate of fire is. A small detail to add is that any bias should be done on a per-unit basis, preferably per-defending-unit. It's pretty easy to come up with cases where the bias won't be effective if it's not per-defending-unit. It might be a pain in the ass to add that kind of commmunication between the weapon and the defender, though. | ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
So how about reimplementing the high ground hit chance penalty, but raise the hit chance to the intended 70% as opposed to BW`s actual 50%? That would return the importance of high ground without making that high ground too strong. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On March 05 2010 08:05 Bill307 wrote: I like how you just assume it has to be implemented in a stupid overcorrecting way like that. Maybe try asking yourself if it can be done in a good way instead of just trying to prove me wrong? Sorry if I offended you, but I was trying to do exactly that. + Show Spoiler [My thought process] + You want to remove variance by making sets dependent on previous information. If in your first set, you get 70% hits instead of 50%, the next set has to go down. You have basically two choices. 1. You can make the next set above 50%. This choice doesn't conceptually make sense because you're trying to keep everything in general AT 50%. So going 70% and then 55% for your first two sets is already at odds with your goal. If you wanna do something like go 70->55->51->50, that defeats any overcorrection problem, but you're now hitting higher than 50%. 2. You can make the next set below 50%. This choice makes sense conceptually. You had too good a run earlier on (70%), so you set it back by some. Now using the idea from 2 over and over, you are trying to get the sets to converge towards 50% as fast as possible (to make it better than just everything is 50%). So you need to consider your 70% first run and ask yourself, what's the way to take this back down so that the 70% set and the next set will add to 50%? The only way to do that is to dip low under 50% (like the 35 I used earlier). But there is a problem that has been subtly introduced. Each set of 'x' shots has its own variance, so even though you set things up so that you go 70 -> 35 -> (hopefully) 50, you are less sure about the end result than you would be if you had just set every interval to 50. If you increase the size of 'x', you decrease this variance, but the more you increase the size of 'x', the more closely you resemble just setting everything to 50 to begin with. The oscillation problem is something that comes up in a limiting case where x is 'small' so that it has a medium-large variance. And that's the problem I was describing. TL:DR It doesn't seem like it's possible to defeat statistics by making the variance artificially better without introducing oscillation or closely resembling no additions to the process. I'm sure someone cleverer than me disagrees. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
FoieGras
Canada270 Posts
On March 05 2010 08:24 Jyvblamo wrote: In regards to the issue of some units gaining an 'extra' hit if damage reduction is implemented, one could argue that this would add to the strategy involved when deciding to attack up a ramp. Except in cases like siege tanks where an extra hit might be very important (in which case random miss % can be very frustrating), factoring in an extra hit shouldn't make a decision to attack a ramp suddenly more obvious. This is a good point that damage reduction may add strategy. But like you said, in many cases, extra hits will not be proportional. If the units can take 1-3 hits, increasing the critical hit for a mass number of units gives much more of an advantage than increasing the critical hit for a portion of units. Hopefully these solutions will be tested in beta. | ||
|
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
| ||
|
koonst
United States215 Posts
if thats not enough or to much well tis beta.. play around with balance~! duh lol | ||
|
koonst
United States215 Posts
vs miss/ line of sight good systems i hope blizz trys them all | ||
|
WaveMotion
United States147 Posts
| ||
|
Umbrella
Taiwan936 Posts
| ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On March 04 2010 23:26 Xlancer wrote: Well I was in the US Marines and I can tell you that ground elevation does not effects my weapon's accuracy at all, only distance effects it. (or not being able to see the target) So if blizzard wanted to re-introduce misses into the game, they should base it on distance not elevation. Maybe blizz could make a ramp cost low ground range units 1 range because there shots have to travel against gravity. This would give high ground a more realistic advantage. Aiming upwards is a good deal harder than aiming downwards, this is just one reason why height has always been an advantage. But this is what it sounds like you're describing: ![[image loading]](http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n99/chuiu/ramp.png) Which admittedly would be the ramp to a base, but not all encounters happen at ramps, sometimes they look more like this: ![[image loading]](http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n99/chuiu/cliff.png) Now you can clearly see how it would make it a great deal harder to hit someone who is on higher ground. This is how I've always pictured high ground in SC at least, I'm sure many people agree with me that a 40% miss rate is justified due to high ground always being an advantage. + Show Spoiler [tldr] + Its just a game for fucks sake. Slap a 40% miss rate on units and call it a day. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On March 05 2010 10:24 WaveMotion wrote: maybe just have units on hill have 4 times the damage. that would be fair i think. no, that is by far the worst idea in this thread, i would rather the mechanic be left alone than this. one thing i've noticed is that because your army is getting funnelled so narrowly, if you're going to crack a ramp, it will take a long time, no matter how overwhelming your army is. damage amps will end battles too quickly making high ground totally insurmountable, your zeals/lings will never even get to the wallin. | ||
|
Mastermind
Canada7096 Posts
I do agree that units up a hill/ramp should be given more of an advantage then they currently have, but going back to the bw way is not an acceptable solution imo. | ||
|
d3_crescentia
United States4054 Posts
| ||
|
Teejing
Germany1360 Posts
| ||
|
PerksPlus
Canada105 Posts
Imo attempt to use the current mechanic effectively. If there are serious problems putting it into use let blizzard know. | ||
|
RisingTide
Australia769 Posts
| ||
| ||
