|
On March 04 2010 20:22 ejac wrote:
While I know this is lame, I've always thought a good compromise would be to remove the miss chance, and just have a % damage reduction. That way there is no randomness, and gives high ground an advantage.
I have to agree here, i realy dont like proc chances so a direct damage reduction while firing from lowground seems like the best solution. (stupid procs remind me of why i quit wc3, damn Blademaster getting 4crits in a row from a 15% proc ability made me rage so hard)
I am realy enjoying the game thus far but im missing the territorial battle, getting controll of key locations and holding them with less units than you opponent while you expand or use some cute techbuild like you could in bw.
|
On March 04 2010 21:43 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 21:32 Daigomi wrote: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.
Tell that to bisu, LLOLOLOLOLO OH I WENT THERE!
|
First I thought "this just sounds stupid" but then I realized it would be fun to add a positional dimension to the game like this.
In this way like your example someone being down in army size still could have a chance to counter the stronger army by positioning.
But it shouln't be some random thing. It should be a straight forward dmg % reduction.
Good suggestion.
|
No randomnes for Starcraft 2 please. This is one reason why the removal of reavers was a good thing (i like the unit overall, but scarabs going off or not being almost totally random just SUCKED). On the other hand i think there should be more high ground advantage than there is now. But please no random miss stuff, make it 20% less damage all the time or something, otherwise its just gambling...
|
@papaz: This sort of high ground advantage was already in Starcraft Brood War. It's not a new concept...
And the fact that you thought there wasn't already a positional dimension to Starcraft 2 before this is just sad. Just highlights how diminished the role of positioning is in Starcraft 2.
|
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
Dragoons. They bugged out so much for it to be random.
|
On March 04 2010 21:35 Audiohelper123 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2010 21:32 Daigomi wrote: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, none of these things are in starcraft 2 heh
Imagine how exciting it would be to watch backho beat flash with a xelnaga warp templar rush !
Reductio ad absurdum is really fucking annoying
|
yeah thats why they need to add those things. the game sucks real hard right now
|
I got it folks: there should be a random amount of damage reduction, that has the same estimated value as the original brood war concept, but with lower variance! :p So it could be like 15 - 35% damage reduction per hit, equaling to the EV of 25% chance to miss.
|
I fully agree with In-Control as I already stated in one of my previous threads (which unfortunately degraded immensely as I also wrote about WC3 which created lots of flames).
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=114138
Additionally, I would like to add that in SC2 air is so strong (in SC1 it was only Mutas) and for air units, terrain doesnt matter which decreases the strategical depth.
|
i agree with Incontrol, high ground adds strategical depth which is good ofc
|
|
|
I think it should be like this:
No vision - no damage (like it is; tho on a second thought I'm not sure how I feel about this, haven't played the beta)
vision - like it was in BW
Randomness provides for so much tensity in BW and if Blizzard want to be smart, they'll transfer the good concepts to SC2. Randomness surely must have some place in the game.
Think how much great moments were caused by reaver's scarab bringing in that feeling of uncertainty. Or how boring poker would be without the showdowns when players have already played their moves and are all-in.
Of course, the game shouldn't become a huge luckbox-fest, but having the luck element is such a great thing to add to the game.
|
I agree with the OP, randomness adds another layer of complexity to the game. The randomness should be marginal though, but units on higher ground should have an advantage, for sure.
Dmg reduction should be the variable though, and it should go between 15-25% , make that value in between random imo.
|
On March 04 2010 22:06 Error Ash wrote:
No randomnes for Starcraft 2 please. This is one reason why the removal of reavers was a good thing (i like the unit overall, but scarabs going off or not being almost totally random just SUCKED). On the other hand i think there should be more high ground advantage than there is now. But please no random miss stuff, make it 20% less damage all the time or something, otherwise its just gambling...
I'm a bit on the fence about this comment.
Scarabs to me where a love or hate part of sc1, and it's wasn't a consistant love or hate, it was a situational love or hate.
As fans/viewers of games, you cannot tell me that a classy reaver drop by movie/stork/beesuit/etc that involves scarabs that claw their way around is not something that brings you to the edge of your seat. You cannot tell me that when the scarab gets stuck... then slips out and smashes 5 scvs that it's not a "HOLY SHIT YEAH" moment when you're watching.
Obviously this does lead to the "but it sucks as a player when the sticking happens" but to me, once you finish that game it's behind you, and if you were relying on a reaver winning the game for you then you have deeper issues.
I was actually quite devastated when I heard that reavers were out for SC2, mainly for the former reason; as a spectator, and a big theorycraft person, not having the "flawed yet fun" randomness of reaver/scarab in the game was a big hit to me.
I would have even been happy if some "polished casualised" version of the reaver had of been kept in the game, as long as that unpredictabile element of the scarab was kept in play - it's a huge thing for spectators - and if SC2 wants to survive as a big time, long lasting "scene creating" game like sc1 did, elements like the scarab need to be in the game.
Sure there are tonnes and tonnes of other things in SC1 that we as spectators love, but to me (and I'm sure most of you) scarabs were a great thing to watch - when they hit, and when they didn't.
|
I am not sure randomness is necessary (although I think mines and scarabs are cutting it close; they aren't truly random in the same sense shooting uphill is.)
However, I agree completely that position needs to mean something. SC1 allowed you to retreat and attempt to recoup your losses, but I get the sense that SC2 is less forgiving in this regard due to there being little in the way of natural defenses. I've also heard that any kind of greedy build is insanely difficult to keep alive in the face of rushes, forcing pretty much everyone to play the same way.
I can't vouch for how true these are, but I would hope for these concepts to be avoided.
|
The Reaver's scarab example is old. It has nothing to do with "randomness" it was simply glitchy pathing AI and the fact that Reaver scarabs deal damage in a certain way. It's not "random" that a scarab blows up three or four SCVs instead of one, the Reaver is target fired that way by the player.
I honestly don't think something like having a random chance of uphill attacks hitting will mess with gameplay too much.
|
On March 04 2010 22:06 LunarC wrote:
@papaz: This sort of high ground advantage was already in Starcraft Brood War. It's not a new concept...
And the fact that you thought there wasn't already a positional dimension to Starcraft 2 before this is just sad. Just highlights how diminished the role of positioning is in Starcraft 2.
I know it was in BW. I meant it was a good suggestion for this kind of positional dimension in SC2.
Sorry if I have missed some good positional dimension already existing in SC2 but I havent seen anything of this sort, that is the unit dmg/miss chance is difference depending on your position on map.
|
Simply implement a dmg reduction percentage for units fighting "uphill" .. theres not even anything random about it, but it awards positional advantage.
|
Damage reduction percentage doesn't scale linearly with amount of damage dealt. An overall chance of missing is more uniform in distribution, and is actually better for gameplay in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
