|
On March 04 2010 20:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Because my point is that it wouldn't do better without it.. and I made that point. Don't need to continue to rehash it. He said that it is "bad for competitive" gaming. But SCBW has been shown to do BETTER than any other RTS EVER with random elements. In fact I would argue the randomness of a reaver, spider mine, spawning location, bo and uphill/ramp (to name a few examples) is what has MADE scbw so great.
Games need X factor elements that go beyond "I did the math better so I won" luck, randomness and chaos make things better.. of course in moderation. My OP argues that this is one of those cases where a mere "X always happens" be it a missed shot, damage or whatever is bad because it makes the game more predictable and bland. SCBW gave a potential reward that varied in impact when it came to ramps/cliffs.. that randomness IN THAT APPLICATION was exciting and awesome.
It also didn't "ruin" the game or "make it worse" because each player knew approximately what they were getting into when they fought on ramps. That advantage was enough to turn tides or NOT from time to time.. and not knowing or having the impact felt on hand was really really cool.
Nice argument, you've convinced me. Perhaps it could be summed up to: "Surprises and the potential for them creates suspense."
Now go and convince Blizzard =)
|
On March 04 2010 20:41 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 20:37 thunk wrote:
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. Pretty sure units don't reveal on shots anymore. You need a flying spotter, and you have to keep it alive.
Getting a spotter is pretty trivial. As long as you have a spotter, then if you have more forces your should be able to break up ramps or what not, greatly putting an emphasis back on micro based play rather than macro/tech based play.
|
On March 04 2010 21:17 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 20:57 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Because my point is that it wouldn't do better without it.. and I made that point. Don't need to continue to rehash it. He said that it is "bad for competitive" gaming. But SCBW has been shown to do BETTER than any other RTS EVER with random elements. In fact I would argue the randomness of a reaver, spider mine, spawning location, bo and uphill/ramp (to name a few examples) is what has MADE scbw so great.
Games need X factor elements that go beyond "I did the math better so I won" luck, randomness and chaos make things better.. of course in moderation. My OP argues that this is one of those cases where a mere "X always happens" be it a missed shot, damage or whatever is bad because it makes the game more predictable and bland. SCBW gave a potential reward that varied in impact when it came to ramps/cliffs.. that randomness IN THAT APPLICATION was exciting and awesome.
It also didn't "ruin" the game or "make it worse" because each player knew approximately what they were getting into when they fought on ramps. That advantage was enough to turn tides or NOT from time to time.. and not knowing or having the impact felt on hand was really really cool. Nice argument, you've convinced me. Perhaps it could be summed up to: "Surprises and the potential for them creates suspense." Now go and convince Blizzard =)
spider mine = surprises
hitting up a ramp = total crapfest
|
On March 04 2010 20:12 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 20:10 hugman wrote:
Could people stop adding "noob friendly" to every argument they make against something they don't like in SC2?
Would you argue the point that it's "noob friendly" face to face with a Blizzard designer? If not then leave it out because it's just internet blabble Yes I would and have. Why?
*cringes*
i would do worse face to face with a blizzard designer(lead)
|
% dmg reduction is just about the dumbest thing you could do, if a guy on low ground is shooting at a guy on a roof or a cliff, hitting him is not going to hurt less.. LOL, how about instead of 50% dmg reduction, the attack only hits 50% of the time, that would make sense, be more realistic and it would still do the same amount of damage over 100 shots...... oh wait, thats what incontrol is saying and thats what the "randomness" is in BW..... Seriously.. 50% dmg reduction LOL
i agree with incontrol 100% here
|
Goon on higher ground dies to goon on lower ground = wtfux injustice
in sc1 = possible
in sc2 = not possible
|
On March 04 2010 21:25 duckhunt wrote:
% dmg reduction is just about the dumbest thing you could do, if a guy on low ground is shooting at a guy on a roof or a cliff, hitting him is not going to hurt less.. LOL, how about instead of 50% dmg reduction, the attack only hits 50% of the time, that would make sense, be more realistic and it would still do the same amount of damage over 100 shots...... oh wait, thats what incontrol is saying and thats what the "randomness" is in BW..... Seriously.. 50% dmg reduction LOL
i agree with incontrol 100% here
by your logic marines shouldnt be dealing 6 damage, isntead they should do 0-100 and sometimes straight up kill a hydra in one hit. talk about dumb things to suggest...
|
lol all this talk about randomness being bad reminds me of my old WoW arena days where everyone cried about mace stun with Warrior/Druid 2v2 combo.
|
On March 04 2010 21:25 duckhunt wrote:
% dmg reduction is just about the dumbest thing you could do, if a guy on low ground is shooting at a guy on a roof or a cliff, hitting him is not going to hurt less.. LOL, how about instead of 50% dmg reduction, the attack only hits 50% of the time, that would make sense, be more realistic and it would still do the same amount of damage over 100 shots...... oh wait, thats what incontrol is saying and thats what the "randomness" is in BW..... Seriously.. 50% dmg reduction LOL
i agree with incontrol 100% here
except you can achieve the same effect without the short term problems the randomness causes
|
South Africa4316 Posts
On March 04 2010 21:02 Audiohelper123 wrote:
so youre saying the game is better because a worse player can get lucky shots in and beat a better player
Exactly that. I hate it when people miss this point. In all sports people who are weaker should be able to win with a bit of luck some of the time. It's called unpredictability, and it makes a game exciting to watch. There should be a limit to it obviously, but it is definitely not a bad thing. I don't know how much Starcraft you watched, but Starcraft had many, many things like this in it, and still, the top players consistently win, the bad players consistently lose, and the number of games that have been ruined by "bad luck" are insanely small.
Something like this will not make the game luck based. If you want to calculate the probabilities you can, but in each game each player shoot hundreds of shots up and down ramps. The higher the number of shots, the closer the probability moves to the mean. The chance that anyone misses or hits 75% of his shots over the period of a single game, much less a series of games or a career, is negligible.
That said, I don't particularly care if it's a damage reduction or a miss chance, although I think that it should be about 25%, unless the sight mechanic is removed. You can't have it 50% and have the non-reveal mechanic used. 25% + the mechanic seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
Also, as Inc has said and people have ignored, there are tons of strategic reasons for including it. Lots of people have been complaining about the lack of positional strategy in the game, and they've mostly blamed it on increased mobility. I would say that this has the same impact as increased mobility. In SC, armies had to dance around each other, because you couldn't kill an equal force if that army had position. This made FE more feasible, it made strategic battles that weren't just charge in an engage common, and it added to the strategy of SC immensely.
In SC2, much of this is lost because a few spotters, or a scan, or a floating building, anything can be used to completely nullify a positional advantage. (possible technically incorrect example, but the point works) For example, if you FE in a TVT then you are 400 minerals behind. In SC1, you could try to hold it with tanks on the higher ground. In SC2, a barracks floated over your higher ground nullifies your advantage, and you end up being 250 resources behind, making it very difficult to survive. The longer the game goes on, the worse these problems get because spotting becomes cheaper and cheaper, and you end up just having two armies run into each other instead of trying to outmaneuver each other.
I really hope they change this.
|
I was wondering if there is something like "miss when shooting uphill" when watching streams. I automatically assumed there is because its Starcraft but now i must hear theres not.
And is dislike it.
The only reason I can think of is that it'll be too hard to push up a ramp in early game with for example roaches when there is a wall. This would make early harass too difficult.
And btw probs to OP, nice opening post and funny title, all I can hope for.
|
Who ever doesn't want ANY change to highground advantage should watch Boxer vs Hyun on Bluestorm with the english subs.
|
On March 04 2010 21:32 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 21:02 Audiohelper123 wrote:
so youre saying the game is better because a worse player can get lucky shots in and beat a better player Exactly that. I hate it when people miss this point. In all sports people who are weaker should be able to win with a bit of luck some of the time. It's called unpredictability
spider mines, reaver shots, burrowed lurkers, getting caught off guard, build order. Is that not enough? A worse player can do a ton of things to win. blizz can always add boxes that spawn at random locations on the map and unlock xelnaga units to the lucky son of a gun who finds them.
Imagine how exciting it would be to watch backho beat flash with a xelnaga warp templar rush !
|
Russian Federation1607 Posts
On March 04 2010 21:32 Daigomi wrote:
I really hope they change this.
|
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
Is there an icon for "most idiotic statement from someone who clearly doesn't play much"? Please give it to this guy.
Meanwhile - IIRC, the "low ground vs high ground" calculation was 1 in 3 will miss for the warcraft 3 engine right? Something along those lines? Now, I'm not a massive fan of the way SC1 made it a very random calculation, however I think that the wc3 version was a nice compromise. I would really like that to be implemented in sc2 as OP clearly states; it brings a strategic element to positional fortification/attacking stances in Starcraft.
The current method is a very modern Blizzard "casualisation" of strategy - whilst not a total cop-out, it's still pretty bad.
|
This seems almost counter-intuitive. In fact I had no idea that this was the case. I'd just assumed that If I was on high ground I had an advantage. Without this advantage why would they even put different ground levels in the game. They could just use choke points instead of ramps and barriers instead of cliffs with everything being flat. Kinda boring don't you think? They added "depth" to the game and removed it at the same time!
|
On March 04 2010 21:32 Daigomi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 21:02 Audiohelper123 wrote:
so youre saying the game is better because a worse player can get lucky shots in and beat a better player Exactly that. I hate it when people miss this point. In all sports people who are weaker should be able to win with a bit of luck some of the time. It's called unpredictability, and it makes a game exciting to watch. There should be a limit to it obviously, but it is definitely not a bad thing. I don't know how much Starcraft you watched, but Starcraft had many, many things like this in it, and still, the top players consistently win, the bad players consistently lose, and the number of games that have been ruined by "bad luck" are insanely small.
Wanting things to be interesting is not the same as wanting them to be random. In situations like Korea where people rely on these results as a career, there is no room for leaving open the statistical probability that someone will lose merely because of a bad roll of the dice.
|
I said this before, months ago. But the solution is to adjust the range of units down by 1 when firing at a unit up hill. This makes a huge difference, without randomness, and it's simple implement as well. They could do it next patch if they wanted.
The current mechanic sucks. One colossus and you might as well be on open ground. The only time it makes any difference whatsoever is at the very beginning of the game. But one roach squeezes up the ramp and burrows before you can stop it, and again, your high ground is completely nullified and there's likely nothing you can do about it.
|
On March 04 2010 20:14 qoou wrote:Show nested quote +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. Or simply a % dmg reduction for the low ground units.
This would be optimal.
|
Russian Federation1607 Posts
Ok, to clarify some high ground "randomness"
This is 2 players probability of winning the game (PPW):
Player A PPW: -------------------------------|------------
Player B PPW: -----------|--------------------------------
This is high ground "randomness" (HGR):
HGR: |-----|
So, if Player B achieved HGR by luck, their PPW will be this:
Player A PPW: -------------------------------|------------
Player B PPW: ----------------|---------------------------
As u can see Player B will lose anyway lol
But if skill of Player A is slightly higher than skill of Player B:
Player A PPW: -------------------------------|------------
Player B PPW: ----------------------------|---------------
HBR can help Player B to win the game:
Player A PPW: -------------------------------|------------
Player B PPW: --------------------------------|-----------
But this doesnt ruin the game, it makes the game even more interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
