I think people are underestimating Blizzard's designers a bit.
I'm a pretty inexperienced game designer, but not a complete neophyte. If I were working on WoL, one of the points of emphasis would be that the game should be more dynamic and aggressive than BW. TvT is the obvious example, but in general defensive advantages allow a player in a weaker position to prolong the game, but rarely to win it (given map control issues). Another point would be to limit the power of early aggression, cutting down on the number of 7-minute microfests (4-pool, bunker rush, etc.). A final point would be to reduce pseudo-random effects, in a nod towards competitive/professional play. I'm not saying this is "right", and I'm not saying Blizzard's designers agree, but I don't think it's unreasonable.
If Blizzard were to have these goals, the current mechanic makes a fair amount of sense. A wall of melee units to block a ramp, with ranged units behind them, is more powerful for early defense (0% chance to hit ranged units instead of 50%), while less powerful late (100% chance to hit instead of 50%). That discourages ultra-early aggression, while encouraging less late-game turtle-play. It also removes a random element, satisfying all three of the points of emphasis above.
Does this mean things are great as they are? Not necessarily. But I suspect there are multiple designers at Blizzard with a quite specific (and quite long!) list of goals who carefully considered this, and continue to carefully consider it. I don't think a couple weeks into the beta is the right time to say "Screw it, it's horrible, back to the BW system!"
Consider this less a suggestion of a solution, and more a plea for patience. Blizzard has good game designers, and I think they deserve a chance to refine things throughout the beta.
I don't this k its should be random like in sc1 but I do think it should be more similar. It should be if you are fighting up hill all damage is reduced by 10% (or maybe in sc2 terms fighting up hill, units on top all have +1 or +2 armor). J think this would be a fine change that takes out 'chance' but adds a similar mechanic as sc1.
The only recent game I could think of where the miss chance made all the difference:
Flash's vulture barely slips by on the ramp and gives him the intel he needs to decide to do a timing push to punish Stork's greedy build.
Some of you will look at this and say, "See? Pure randomness and luck let Flash win that crucial ace match. It doesn't belong in Starcraft." Others will say, "See? The crowd and commentators held their breath in utter suspense when that vulture was about to be taken out. This is what watching Starcraft is all about." And then others will say, "See? Stork ignored a fundamental strategical element of the game, didn't react fast enough or guard his front better, and paid the price. Things like this are why Starcraft is such a strategically deep game."
Of course, the people in the live thread just said, "2400!! FLASH BONJWA!!!"
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.
Alternatively they could just make a penalty or 75% or 80% damage only and, why not, reducing the range, which would also makes sense. I don't really like the idea that the 4th shoot will miss, because it makes it predictible and you would just avoid to shoot 4 time something which is on a cliff.
I started a thread on this matter on the beta forums. Hoping to get some more discussion going on the matter and...who knows? Maybe even a blue response.
I agree the random misses kind of suck BUT the -1 range to low ground sounds like it's the best fix for positional army placement and defending. I enjoy this idea.
I think 4-player maps should be removed from the game because whether people spawn at cross or side positions is a random effect that can have a large effect on the game.
On March 05 2010 00:10 Floophead_III wrote: Another example: HoN (or DoTA for those of you who haven't migrated yet) has a miss uphill chance. Often fights and ganks and laning come down to a 1 hit difference in that game. I can't even count the number of times I had a great play and launched that beautiful finishing attack to watch it land on the ground with the fat letters "miss" as my enemy just barely escapes. It's clear that I'm getting shafted here as the better player.
It looks more to me like you got shafted because your opponent had the high ground advantage.
Another vote for a range adjustments rather than damage reduction. % chance to miss is the best imo but I can understand Blizzard wanting to eliminate as many random elements as possible.
I'd actually like to see high-attacks-low get a +1 range and low-attacks-high get -1 range combined with the current spotter mechanic. A more extreme the high ground advantage gives the game more depth, which will lengthen the game's longevity and raise the ceiling for competitive performance.
Unpredictability (a random event) is key to making something enjoyable to watch. Prime example? March Madness. Would it be nearly as fun if an 11 seed didn't come out and upset a 1 seed every once in a while? No.
Without the threat of an upset, what is the point of watching, unless you're a fan of the favorite? If every win is a build order win, why don't players just declare their BO at the beginning and then decide who wins? The fact that randomness can overcome superior skill and strategy is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I believe SC2 needs that bit of high ground adv and randomness. Lower ground units could have a higher chance of missing if firing on units with indirect vision, then a lower chance of missing when firing on direct vision.
On March 05 2010 02:32 Rho_ wrote: Unpredictability (a random event) is key to making something enjoyable to watch. Prime example? March Madness. Would it be nearly as fun if an 11 seed didn't come out and upset a 1 seed every once in a while? No.
Without the threat of an upset, what is the point of watching, unless you're a fan of the favorite? If every win is a build order win, why don't players just declare their BO at the beginning and then decide who wins? The fact that randomness can overcome superior skill and strategy is a good thing, not a bad thing.
An 11 seed beating a 1 seed is not a random event. It has low probability, but it is not determined by uncontrollable factors.
Poll should be added to OP imo. something with options like: - No change - Randomness (chance to miss) - Reduced damage % - Every nth hit misses
personally i'm a fan of reduced damage. It may not be the most realistic thing in the world, but it properly rewards cliff advantages and imo does it in the most concrete and suitable way.
On March 05 2010 02:32 Rho_ wrote: Unpredictability (a random event) is key to making something enjoyable to watch. Prime example? March Madness. Would it be nearly as fun if an 11 seed didn't come out and upset a 1 seed every once in a while? No.
Without the threat of an upset, what is the point of watching, unless you're a fan of the favorite? If every win is a build order win, why don't players just declare their BO at the beginning and then decide who wins? The fact that randomness can overcome superior skill and strategy is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Starcraft is, for the most part, about execution. The vernacular is "micro" and "macro". Even a "build-order win" can be lost if the other player is simply a superior player. The idea that eliminating pseudo-random effects would create a solved game is absurd on its face.
On March 05 2010 02:32 Rho_ wrote: Unpredictability (a random event) is key to making something enjoyable to watch. Prime example? March Madness. Would it be nearly as fun if an 11 seed didn't come out and upset a 1 seed every once in a while? No.
Without the threat of an upset, what is the point of watching, unless you're a fan of the favorite? If every win is a build order win, why don't players just declare their BO at the beginning and then decide who wins? The fact that randomness can overcome superior skill and strategy is a good thing, not a bad thing.
An 11 seed beating a 1 seed is not a random event. It has low probability, but it is not determined by uncontrollable factors.
It's not? How can you control if a player has a cold or hot night shooting? Even the best shooters have ups and downs, and at the college level you see it all the time. Guard X will be a 30% 3 point shooter on the season, but will be hitting 50% in the tournament. Or some other player will be a 90% FT shooter, and brick one to stay in the game. How can you control the bounces on rebounds?
It's just like the high ground advantage. Sure, over the course of thousands of shots, a player will have a predictable average, but in any given single game, he can go hot or cold.
EPT
