|
On March 04 2010 20:10 IdrA wrote:
randomness isnt a good thing, but the old way was better than this
it should be every 4th shot misses or something that provides the same effect without having the situations arise where 20 goons are shooting uphill at a tank and take 3 volleys to kill it/2 goons are shooting uphill at a tank and dont miss once in 4 volleys.
agree, it removes randomness, but gives the defender the little advantage that had in bw, in fact makes it safer for the defender, and more understandable for the new players (if that is what blizzard wants)
anyway I agree with incontrol in the point: it most be fixed.
|
On March 04 2010 19:59 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +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 Spoken like a guy who doesn't know sc very well. Randomness has ALWAYS had a HUGE ROLE in sc/scbw/sc2. Scarabs? Spawn locations? BO's? etc etc... It isn't like the randomness of shooting up a ramp or cliff makes no sense either.. it is a positional reward that completely alters the game IN A GOOD WAY. Should a guy standing up on a cliff be treated like a guy standing right in your face in a gun fight? Absolutely NOT.
Should a guy with a gun be able to shoot down a battlecruiser? Should a neural parasite work on a robot? Should units sometimes just go in random directions, or run from battle because they are scared? Should vehicles break down? Need fuel?
There comes a time when you need to accept that it is a game.
|
i think in bw its 50% to miss so its the same as 50 % reduction but with luck
|
I agree that the current method is kind of lame. As far as the whole 'realism' and all that junk goes, I really don't think it should be considered WHATSOEVER in this argument.
As far as actually producing quality gameplay goes, I can see the strengths/weaknesses in both versions.
I think the current method creates some really cool tactics when it comes to disallowing your opponent sight. Sniping air units, blocking ramps, etc. But when the person on low ground actually has sight, it becomes stupid that both parties are now on an equal field of play.
I'd like to see sight still being required, but add an additional ~20% chance for low-ground units to miss. It's a lot lower than that of SC1, but I feel it's still significant in combination with the required sight.
|
chance has no place in a serious game like sc
|
I dislike the randomness too. It's alright if you have a lot of units or just rapid attack speed because the hits and misses even out fairly quickly and in essence become a damage reduction but with fewer units it can even decide games which just shouldn't be possible.
As someone else already suggested, just put in some disadvantage for units fighting uphill (whether it be nerfing attack damage or attack speed or even reducing their range) and we get both high ground advantage and get rid of the randomness.
|
Yes scarabs are shit, this is a bad thing, not a good thing.
I don't think anyone would argue that chess would be better if your next move was determined by the roll of a dice.
You can argue that chance/randomness happens a lot in a game but something being very occurrent in a game is not an argument for it being very good.
Quite the contrary, I think it is the things that a player can be sure about (non-random) that make the game good. It is these non-random gaurantees that players base all of their decisions around. Chance can add some interesting dynamics, no doubt, but a LACK of chance in a game is in no way going to detract from it.
Just my two cents.
P.S. I don't get excited when 4 goons take forever to get up a ramp against some rines one game and then take half a second to get up the ramp the next game. I don't find that fun at all.
|
If you give units a -50% damage reduction, fully upgraded Ultra's would be ridiculously hard to kill on high ground.....same with other high armor units.
|
On March 04 2010 20:17 Gliche wrote:
Imo it should not be random. It should be a set percentage of damage reduction, like most ranged units have a 30% damage decrease when firing from low to high ground, with exceptions like the colossus and siege tank and something for zerg (lurkers if they were in the game).
The same idea could possibly be applied with a smaller reduction to those line of sight "bushes" too but I think gameplay-wise they shouldn't. Firing with ranged units behind those bushes should be strategic enough by itself.
Agree with this 100%. It really was super annoying to see the dragoon vs tank example idra brought up over and over again BW matches. Using a system like this, you can still reward good positioning on maps with a lot of height differentiation but you can do so with consistency. More predictable and possible to learn/understand the benefits and drawbacks of high ground without completely removing the advantage altogether. With how mobile units are in SC2, and with observers, overlords, scans, and more, height really doesn't seem like it will make much of a difference at all at the high-level of play if line of sight is literally the only damning factor of being on the low ground.
|
On March 04 2010 20:24 Mikilatov wrote:
I agree that the current method is kind of lame. As far as the whole 'realism' and all that junk goes, I really don't think it should be considered WHATSOEVER in this argument.
As far as actually producing quality gameplay goes, I can see the strengths/weaknesses in both versions.
I think the current method creates some really cool tactics when it comes to disallowing your opponent sight. Sniping air units, blocking ramps, etc. But when the person on low ground actually has sight, it becomes stupid that both parties are now on an equal field of play.
I'd like to see sight still being required, but add an additional ~20% chance for low-ground units to miss. It's a lot lower than that of SC1, but I feel it's still significant in combination with the required sight.
Replace ~20% miss chance with the already discussed ~20% damage reduction and you know my opinion on this. I don't like the way it is currently that units on the cliff are equal to those on the ground just because they can see each other...
But I'm pretty sure there is a good reason why it is the way it is currently in SC2 and I would really like to know that reason.
|
On March 04 2010 20:27 Rothbardian wrote:
If you give units a -50% damage reduction, fully upgraded Ultra's would be ridiculously hard to kill on high ground.....same with other high armor units.
and how is a 50 % reduction different than miss chance? It's the same thing ..what are you talking about?
|
On March 04 2010 20:29 Audiohelper123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 20:27 Rothbardian wrote:
If you give units a -50% damage reduction, fully upgraded Ultra's would be ridiculously hard to kill on high ground.....same with other high armor units. and how is a 50 % reduction different than miss chance? It's the same thing ..what are you talking about?
It's not the same thing. With the miss chance, when you land a hit you deal full damage. As we know having a 50% chance, doesn't mean that hit/miss will be 50%, only that you have a 50% chance each roll of the dice to either hit or miss.
They are two totally different entities.
|
I dont like randomness. And i dont see the purpose of damage reduction.
If they really want to improve the gameplay with cliffs, they might add a bonus RANGE for units up.
(and maybe even a dead zone for units too close, down the cliff.)
|
On March 04 2010 20:27 Rothbardian wrote:
If you give units a -50% damage reduction, fully upgraded Ultra's would be ridiculously hard to kill on high ground.....same with other high armor units.
50% would be pushing it, and it certainly doesn't have to be a straight damage reduction all around. And anyways, weren't Ultras already hard as hell to kill when they were up a ramp in BW? Same with Lurkers, or Tanks, or Marines, or whatever else. Usually it resulted in more exciting and risky play to either make use of or work around that advantage. I'm all for that. Would you rather watch 6 Stalkers stand up against a cliff and shoot down 2 tanks with observer support, or would you rather them be forced to blink up that cliff just to win that battle?
|
On March 04 2010 20:31 Rothbardian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 20:29 Audiohelper123 wrote:On March 04 2010 20:27 Rothbardian wrote:
If you give units a -50% damage reduction, fully upgraded Ultra's would be ridiculously hard to kill on high ground.....same with other high armor units. and how is a 50 % reduction different than miss chance? It's the same thing ..what are you talking about? It's not the same thing. With the miss chance, when you land a hit you deal full damage. As we know having a 50% chance, doesn't mean that hit/miss will be 50%, only that you have a 50% chance each roll of the dice to either hit or miss. They are two totally different entities.
what
|
How can someone not get the diffrence between 50% miss and 50% less damage?
50% miss: Get lucky and hit 10 times in a row totally ignoring that you should have a disadvantage.
50% miss: Get unlucky and miss 10 times in a row totally getting raped by something you should have been able to take whiteout much problems.
50% less dmg = 50% less damage.
|
The current situation is far too all-or-nothing, either you cannot see, you have zero chance to attack and MUST retreat, or you can see and the cliffed units has ZERO advantage.
People always spout stuff about "randomness has no place in SC", but in the original did anyone feel that the winner of a highground/lowground battle was random? No, it gave the units on high ground a very quantifiable advantage, a much more subtle and strategic advantage than the black and whhite "system" put into play in Sc2 currently.
|
On March 04 2010 20:34 Velr wrote:
How can someone not get the diffrence between 50% miss and 50% less damage?
50% miss: Get lucky and hit 10 times in a row totally ignoring that you should have a disadvantage.
50% miss: Get unlucky and miss 10 times in a row totally getting raped by something you should have been able to take whiteout much problems.
50% less dmg = 50% less damage. yeah im arguing for damage reduction because its predictable. Whats the problem here exactly?
|
|
|
There's no high ground advantage of being on a cliff? That's like not having an advantage at all. It needs to be put back into the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
