EPTIt's over Anakin! - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
renchak
209 Posts
| ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On March 04 2010 22:10 Essence wrote: 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. The EV of chance to miss in BW was actually somewhere around 46%, according to people who did extensive tests, I'm too lazy to search for the corresponding topics, though. I'd really prefer damage reduction (a fixed ratio somewhere between 25% and 50%, applied after armor) over random chance to miss. Imo there are enough elements of luck, especially with all the cliff-ignoring units/abilities you can really get lucky and catch your opponent in a bad spot. I also don't like the current system because there really is barely ever a lack of spotters. Observers come out quickly, Colossi are spotters, too. Any bio army has medivacs, also scan obviously. Zerg has overlords and mutas. Really the only time when you don't have a spotter readily available is in the very early game, and it doesn't seem like it would make a real difference there. On March 04 2010 22:29 LunarC wrote: 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. What? Care to explain how it doesn't scale linearly? Reduction by x percent is a linear function, after all. | ||
|
sword_siege
United States624 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
I also miss the old mechanic, but I think calling the new one noob friendly is a bit silly, when they probably changed it to cater to... the hardcore community ("Randomness does not have a place in competitive games"). The new one is meh tho, it means you either fight with NO disadvantage or you don't fight at all because you can't fucking shoot back. | ||
|
dpoon
Canada37 Posts
As for the solutions to this problem, there really isn't a perfect solution for it - I'm sure everyone's figured that out already. My vote goes with Incontrol though. Having a hit-rate% reduction (ie. 75% hit-rate instead of 100%), when there is vision, is something that can deter any good player. While damage% reduction also does that, it just ends up being a "who can do math better" situation. Basically, there is no risk at all as long as you have enough to compensate for that, whereas for a hit-rate% reduction, there is the risk that it might not work. That is the pivotal thing about holding and/or attacking high-ground, it's not just about who has more units, there's a risk involved. The lack of risk will just force the game into a "Player A builds lots of units and therefore Player B must also build lots of units to fill up the difference or else he loses". A damage% reduction doesn't stop that but pushes it forward - since it is still just a numbers game (unless of course you nerfed the damage to some stupid percentage ie. - 50% damage). All-in-all, I feel that a hit-rate% reduction is the best way to go. Sure there are times where this system really backfires (ie. where almost all your shots will miss), where a lesser player can end up beating a better player. But if you think about it, there's so much more that can tip the scales in a battle than just high-ground vs low-ground. The better player will always try to do subtle things to gain himself a slight advantage that the lesser player will not. There's a reason why the better player, even if they lose that important "shuttle with two reavers", can still win. ~dPoon | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
On March 04 2010 21:28 Audiohelper123 wrote: 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... Yeah that would be called 'hitting the person in a vital area versus not hitting them". Kind of happens when people fire weapons at each other. | ||
|
Kyuki
Sweden1867 Posts
I just dont understand the argument that it is "better" for the sport that there is a chance that an absolutly correct decision of attacking high ground because of a larger army can be completely punished by a random factor. It doesnt make much sense at all imo. Beating certain odds should involve nice/better micro, nice tactical play and decison making etc, not a roll of a dice. Imho. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
For example: a sieged tank kills a marine in 1 shot, but the same tank with damage reduction would result in a 2 hit kill, and even if it's a random amount of reduction the chance to 2 hit kill would be disproportionally high, since it would happen even with a low % reduction. If they want to reintroduce miss chances then using pseudorandom distribution like some skills did in wc3, would be the best case. For example: the chance to miss would be 10% on the first attack, 20% on the second attack, 30% on the third, e.t.c. until the unit misses an attack and then the chance will reset back to 10% and repeat the pattern. It would still be random, but with a greatly reduced chance for lots of hits or misses in a row. | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
| ||
|
ZenDeX
Philippines2916 Posts
On March 04 2010 22:55 lololol wrote: If they want to reintroduce miss chances then using pseudorandom distribution like some skills did in wc3, would be the best case. For example: the chance to miss would be 10% on the first attack, 20% on the second attack, 30% on the third, e.t.c. until the unit misses an attack and then the chance will reset back to 10% and repeat the pattern. It would still be random, but with a greatly reduced chance for lots of hits or misses in a row. Let's spam this idea to Blizzard. One possible counter-argument could be that units in StarCraft are now trained to project their attacks accurately as long as they have sight. Anyway, I am all for the random high ground mechanic. Defending ramps are close to non-existent in SC2 currently. | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
And to those saying that damage reduction is a better idea, I disagree - it simply doesn't feel right / make sense. Imagine if in counter-strike, when you ran and sprayed your ak, it did 50% of its damage instead of being less accurate. I think randomness can be acceptable in small quantities in competitive gaming (spawn positions, chance to hit), but in large quantities (think orc WC3, or getting random items that can give your ridiculous advantages) it isn't acceptable/ideal. | ||
|
mawno
Sweden114 Posts
| ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1613 Posts
On March 04 2010 22:58 Audiohelper123 wrote: not killing the marine with the tank in 1 hit is exactly the high ground advantage so it would work as intended Actually not. For example. Unit A has 30 HP. Unit B has 70 damage. With 50% damage Unit B 100% kill unit A. With 50% probability of making damage Unit B can miss unit A and unit A will stay alive! | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
On March 04 2010 23:05 Comeh wrote: Personally, I think the system we had for highgrounds in SC1 was about as good as its going to get for competitive gaming and highground advantage. And to those saying that damage reduction is a better idea, I disagree - it simply doesn't feel right / make sense. Imagine if in counter-strike, when you ran and sprayed your ak, it did 50% of its damage instead of being less accurate. I think randomness can be acceptable in small quantities in competitive gaming (spawn positions, chance to hit), but in large quantities (think orc WC3, or getting random items that can give your ridiculous advantages) it isn't acceptable/ideal. that would be the same thing as missing 50 % | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
On March 04 2010 23:07 Jenia6109 wrote: Actually not. For example. Unit A has 30 HP. Unit B has 70 damage. With 50% damage Unit B 100% kill unit A. With 50% probability of making damage Unit B can miss unit A and unit A will stay alive! Enough units will get an advantage from this to make this type of situation not even matter | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
Right now it's like the combination of the improved AI and the lack of upper ground advantage makes fighting up a ramp into someone's base almost as if you were just fighting on an open field. There's almost no advantage to holding the upper ground of a ramp. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On March 04 2010 22:29 LunarC wrote: 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. How so? 10 % chance of missing means you would expect that every tenth shot the unit misses. A unit which deals 10 damage and fights uphil would just do 9 damage on average (or 90 damage out of ten volleys). A unit which deals 100 damage would instead do 90 damage on average uphill. On average it is exactly the same to deduct 10 % each time it shoots (after all bonuses are applied). It thus seems to me you got it backwards. A damage reduction is much more uniform and avoids (un)lucky series of hits(misses) since its variance is zero. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10868 Posts
On March 04 2010 23:12 Audiohelper123 wrote: Enough units will get an advantage from this to make this type of situation not even matter Yeah, but you don't have only big scale battles.. Just play WC3.. Pick a Blademaster and see how his DMG varies depending on your Crit-Luck and DMG-Luck... In almost all cases a % chance won't be skewed over to one side (it will nearly never be completly fair)... The problem is that sometimes it will be completly off and decide entire games on it's own whiteout either player having done anything for it. | ||
|
Audiohelper123
80 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
 . | ||
| ||
