EPTIt's over Anakin! - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
hordeau
United States157 Posts
| ||
|
Chen
United States6344 Posts
| ||
|
rally_point
Canada458 Posts
I then said something like "wtf you guys don't know that? That's key for placement" Anyways I completely agree, units on lower elevation should definitely not be able to fire at units on higher elevation without penalty EDIT: on a side note.... what would happen in the case where a unit is halfway up a cliff and is being shot at? Half the penalty applies? | ||
|
Nao
Poland166 Posts
On March 05 2010 12:38 Anther wrote: I think blizzard lost sight of what's competitive randomness and what isn't. lol. x_X. There's calculated risk... Then there's what happened with brawl where you trip for dashing at random... I agree on the issue, but rather than blizzard i think it's all those "damage reduction" people like DefMatrixUltra quoted several posts elier. I think it's very important to distinguish randomness in situations you are forced to (bad) and in situations of your choice (good). By going up a defended ramp without some siege/drop/distraction/air support units it's your choice to accept the random chance, (wich also is less radnom with more units). Defender also makes the choice to cut corners and try getting away with smaller army, he can also scout if his opponent is massing for an attack. The bad randomnes in games are when you are forced to it, like guns jamming, lightning stike damanging units, general miss or critical chance (bad erly game where there is few units - few attacs decide the outcome), random artifacts from creeps (implemented in WC3, but still it's a good game) etc.. | ||
|
MrMacMan
United States8 Posts
Somethings to note that people still arent getting. a) The game loses a lot in terms of defense and correct positioning with the loss of the mischance. Yes early game the defender has a strong point since their position isnt revealed but by early-midgame you absolutely have a spotter on the high ground, nullifying any advantage. Thusly, positioning matters a whole lot less. In a strategy game there is always an aspect of defender advantage. You can point to real life examples (knowing the terrain better than your opponent, being able to fortify your position.) But i think defender advantage doesnt entirely encompass what is going on here. Cliffsides are presumably some level of steepness. You on the bottom of the cliff will have a harder shot then they will. Someone drew a diagram 2-3 pages back of what this means. Unless you are on a steadily slopped ramp their line of fire is not as clear. b) In SC1 the miss change from low vs. high elevation was around 50%. (TL tests says 53%, Moletrap tested and said 50% - in this youtube video and I've also heard 47%). In any event you can see that the mischance was rather high and the defensive posturing was important. Have you heard the outcry from the progamer community about this 'high' percent chance of a miss? No! It is just a factor of the game you had to incorporate into your play. Does this mean you dont attack into a mass of high elevation sieged tanks? Yes. To counter this drops occur away fortified defense positions. c) Blizzard understands the thinking that mischance 'is bad because its random' - No! It is just a factor that you have to take into account. People have talked about poker and that example works. There are Odds, and you have to taken into account your forces and the natural advantage and troops you are going against. People have been referring to WC3 and such for why Blizzard would remove a 'random' element from gameplay. d) This isnt random! This game is not WC3 where hero characters cast a single spell that misses and costs the game. I can hear that it would be frustrating for that event to happen, but over the course of a game the amount of attacks between different elevations greatly minimize the chance of catastrophic misfires. After saying that, I will admit that a ~50% chance of misfire is probably too high for SC2. But having some high elevation advantage adds a strategy and positional element currently dearly lacking in the SC2 games i have played and seen being played. | ||
|
radiumz0rz
United States253 Posts
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 the randomness is sc is what makes it sc. scarab shots and mine drags turn this game from something fun to watch to something exciting to spectate. | ||
|
AnEsotericMan
United States12 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8085 Posts
| ||
|
KhaosKreator
Canada145 Posts
I would sign the petition to have units deal 80% damage from low ground. | ||
|
Mente
United States288 Posts
DON'T UNDERESTIMATE MY POWERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!! | ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On March 05 2010 14:22 Vedic wrote: You can't try to argue logic with real-life situations, or you'll have to argue that all units should miss merely based on range, or giving these bonuses to air units, or that units should have ammo/reload, etc.. The current implementation works best within the system. Why not argue for more creative map elements, instead of just trying to make SC2 into SCBW as hard as you can. I'll stop arguing to bring back elements of SC into SC2 when I become convinced that SC is no longer the greatest RTS of all time. So far I'm not impressed by SC2 except by its flashy graphics. | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
I said that units on low ground should have -range vs high ground. This would be a predictable downside, and units on high ground would get the first shot, so a siege tank below is never going to be able to kill a siege tank above. No randomness = better gameplay. Distinct advantage = positional game. I don't see a single downside to this mechanic so please somebody point one out or give it some goddamn attention =D | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10888 Posts
| ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
| ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
On March 05 2010 15:59 rally_point wrote: lol I was talking to my sc friends (we're pretty recreational) the other day about fighting on different elevation and I told them "of course you want higher elevation...units on a lower elevation can miss," and none of them knew *GASP* I then said something like "wtf you guys don't know that? That's key for placement" Anyways I completely agree, units on lower elevation should definitely not be able to fire at units on higher elevation without penalty EDIT: on a side note.... what would happen in the case where a unit is halfway up a cliff and is being shot at? Half the penalty applies? you solve the halfway problem the same way that they solved vision. Not quite sure what that is, but if you have vision of the high ground, then the computer must think that you've made it... | ||
|
Deviation
United States134 Posts
| ||
|
LEGAsee
170 Posts
And no, I haven't read the entire thread, just 4 pages. | ||
|
TopHat
United States12 Posts
I do feel that the high ground advantage was a good mechanic that encouraged interesting play, most notably watching the Mantoss break some terran's walled ramp. That stuff was pure excitement. A damage reduction mechanic is probably the best way to retain the SC1 feel of the high ground advantage, since it is the most direct incarnation with the RNG removed. I believe range mechanics would feel too quirky, and a bit hard to analyze in the middle of a fight to break your way up your opponent's ramp. | ||
|
Deviation
United States134 Posts
| ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On March 06 2010 00:20 Floophead_III wrote: I honestly expected a little more love for my idea, but perhaps it's too buried that nobody noticed it. This thread is huge, which pretty much says that no matter what blizz does, it better be something. I said that units on low ground should have -range vs high ground. This would be a predictable downside, and units on high ground would get the first shot, so a siege tank below is never going to be able to kill a siege tank above. No randomness = better gameplay. Distinct advantage = positional game. I don't see a single downside to this mechanic so please somebody point one out or give it some goddamn attention =D Yea, this idea of range change can be potentially game-breaking. A good player can position their units just out of range of the opponent's units but still able to fire on them. With a good wall-in (which basically any race can do now) it would be impossible to break a choke w/out drops or air support of some kind. | ||
| ||
