|
On May 11 2010 22:52 Mecha_cl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 22:45 Shades wrote:On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:On May 11 2010 22:33 Shades wrote:
too many people still have that 'if its not like bw then it must be bad' fever. Don't fix it if it ain't broke. BW and sc2 are two different games, sc2 isn't just a remake of sc1 in an attempt to 'fix' it. New game, new units, new mechanics, don't know how so many people don't realize that yet. I tell people that everyday when they mourn the loss of things such as Lurkers. I just tell them to fuck off back to BW if its that important to them. SC2 isnt BW 2.0, its a new engine, same universe, similar units and races. Seriously, if i got a buck for everytime i tell people this i'd be fucking Bill Gates.
I agree 100%. New game, new mechanics, etc. This is not broodwar. Please stop comparing the games at all. Why don't you instead just look at SC2 as a game in its own right, and decide...is it balanced? Yes or no. If it is, good game. If it isn't, bad game. It really is that simple.
EDIT:
Yeah the high ground SHOULD NOT have changed, it makes taking the highground pointless, in sc1 it took alot of investment to break a high ground expo because you had this thing called the defenders advantage, in sc2 however its send an air unit there and there is no advantage because you can shoot up and never miss. its stupid and pointless
bring back the miss %
actually ill provide an example of what happened to me yesterday : im doing the standard 1gate core stargate gate, i have about 4 stalkers while making a voidray, my opponent comes in with his 3 marines 3 marauder army, 4 stalkers CAN NOT beat this on low ground without blink because of slow, so what do i do wait for the non existant highground advantage to save me somehow, BUT WAIT, he walks up gets vision on my ramp and kills me because theres no longer anything to keep someone teching safe anymore this happens everytime it ry to tech except against zerg usually(weaker units ofc) because theres nothing stopping them from walking a zealot or a marauder or whatever up and killing you, its straight up retarded, and allows lower skill players to win because theres no longer a factor to let you play like you want to, you have to play the standard robotics build because everything punishes you with some kind of gay early rush which you cant even stop because they just need vision of your ramp to be on even ground with you.
hope that made some sense.
Ever heard of sentries? Or scouting? If you had sentries block ramp after half come up, kill those, then let rest come up, kill those. Separate his force. Or if you had scouted you could of seen what he was doing and reacted to it. You turtling is not an excuse to bitch about high ground. Use the choke to your advantage, scout, and keep a guy at xel'naga watch tower. This is a different game. You played a poor game and had a timing push against you in essence and you weren't prepared. You lose.
|
I agree, it bothers me how the mechanic is either all or none without some sort of consistent variable throughout the whole game. Why does it have to be 33% or whatever it was? If you kept in the current high ground advantage and added in say a 10-15% miss rate, you could have the best of both worlds. A little of the old mechanic combined with the new mechanic.
|
Look, no one is arguing the mechanic is not balanced. People who are talking about SC2 not being SC1 are putting a straw man up: we agree that it is freaking balanced. However, it's not BETTER. Show me a map like Heartbreak Ridge where pushes have to be cleverly timed. Oh wait, there is no high ground mid game so that map is pointless. Matchpoint holding the big ramp when taking your 4th? Seriously, by the time you'd do that you have observers, overseers, and vikings. No point to move out to take it then, better just all-in.
I can keep on going, but what this shows is this: the problem is that it discourages many-base play. It discourages taking these extra 4ths and 5th and having huge battles all over the map with small control groups. It's better just to all-in because taking those expansion make you vulnerable (yes, there is a ramp at the expansion, but is there a place where you can position your army where you will not get counterattacked yet still have a decent advantage?) People are complaining about how the game devolves into simple timing pushes, counterattacking seeing who will kill the other base (or lift off) first, and how almost every game turns into an all-in straight into an all-in, and this is why. Everyone is complaining about this problem but ignoring the solution just because an older game solved it this way... and that's a pretty dumb argument.
|
regardless what blizz and browder bullshits to us, the sc1 high ground mechanic is 100x better than the trash they still have in this game. SC1's is just more depth. Period.
User Temp Banned for this post: Tone
|
By that logic, NOTHING is BETTER. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion - some people like the randomness in SC!, some people don't.
It SHOULD be all or nothing. Imagine 20 Marauders losing to 1 Stalker because of high-ground; how is that balanced, or better, at all? Does it add more depth to the game? Yes, it does; however, the only depth it adds is the possibility for somebody to beat a superior force with a (highly) inferior one, which should only happen to a certain extent (i.e. if they A-moved)
You guys complain about SC2 being all turtle and macro, then A-move, then ask to replace a current mechanic that inherently discourages it? >.>
|
Too many people in this thread mixing up "Nostalgia-blind idiots" with people who are really concerned for the high-ground system in SC2.
The high ground system sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it's like SC1, I just want high ground to matter in SC2, because without it a large amount of positional skill potential is removed.
|
|
|
On May 12 2010 11:22 Smurfz wrote:
Too many people in this thread mixing up "Nostalgia-blind idiots" with people who are really concerned for the high-ground system in SC2.
The high ground system sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it's like SC1, I just want high ground to matter in SC2, because without it a large amount of positional skill potential is removed.
And you're not mixing up the "You stupid nostalgia-blind idiot" sayers with the people who actually agree with the high-ground mechanic for legitimate reasons?
|
I really think there should be some miss % for highground
|
On May 11 2010 23:33 cuppatea wrote:
I think it's good they've removed random elements from the game. Battles should come down to player skill, not luck, which is often the case when miss percentages are involved.
you have a 100% of being ignorant of how luck and skill work
|
On May 12 2010 11:27 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 11:22 Smurfz wrote:
Too many people in this thread mixing up "Nostalgia-blind idiots" with people who are really concerned for the high-ground system in SC2.
The high ground system sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it's like SC1, I just want high ground to matter in SC2, because without it a large amount of positional skill potential is removed. And you're not mixing up the "You stupid nostalgia-blind idiot" sayers with the people who actually agree with the high-ground mechanic for legitimate reasons?
AFAIK, there's not a single person who thinks that the current mechanic is good. All they can say is "Learn to play the new game. Blizzard won't change it."
|
On May 12 2010 11:31 ilnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 23:33 cuppatea wrote:
I think it's good they've removed random elements from the game. Battles should come down to player skill, not luck, which is often the case when miss percentages are involved. you have a 100% of being ignorant of how luck and skill work
You have a 100% chance of being ignorant of how luck and skill work yourself, if you say that to cuppatea.
On May 12 2010 11:32 lolaloc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 11:27 Zeke50100 wrote:On May 12 2010 11:22 Smurfz wrote:
Too many people in this thread mixing up "Nostalgia-blind idiots" with people who are really concerned for the high-ground system in SC2.
The high ground system sucks, as far as I'm concerned. I don't care if it's like SC1, I just want high ground to matter in SC2, because without it a large amount of positional skill potential is removed. And you're not mixing up the "You stupid nostalgia-blind idiot" sayers with the people who actually agree with the high-ground mechanic for legitimate reasons? AFAIK, there's not a single person who thinks that the current mechanic is good. All they can say is "Learn to play the new game. Blizzard won't change it."
I say it's good, because it discourages turtling, as well as removing a random element that could totally screw you over.
|
On May 12 2010 11:12 rackdude wrote:
Look, no one is arguing the mechanic is not balanced. People who are talking about SC2 not being SC1 are putting a straw man up: we agree that it is freaking balanced. However, it's not BETTER. Show me a map like Heartbreak Ridge where pushes have to be cleverly timed. Oh wait, there is no high ground mid game so that map is pointless. Matchpoint holding the big ramp when taking your 4th? Seriously, by the time you'd do that you have observers, overseers, and vikings. No point to move out to take it then, better just all-in.
I can keep on going, but what this shows is this: the problem is that it discourages many-base play. It discourages taking these extra 4ths and 5th and having huge battles all over the map with small control groups. It's better just to all-in because taking those expansion make you vulnerable (yes, there is a ramp at the expansion, but is there a place where you can position your army where you will not get counterattacked yet still have a decent advantage?) People are complaining about how the game devolves into simple timing pushes, counterattacking seeing who will kill the other base (or lift off) first, and how almost every game turns into an all-in straight into an all-in, and this is why. Everyone is complaining about this problem but ignoring the solution just because an older game solved it this way... and that's a pretty dumb argument.
I agree that the people going "omg this is a new game go play bwlol" are putting up a straw man, but that said you know what else would be to put up a strawman? To take a map from sc/bw a game with different mechanics and state that this map in that other game won't work in this game due to mechanic x. Hence mechanic is worse.
Anyway to the point if there is in fact a situation where you are encouraged to not take extra 4'th and 5'th base then I think it is a map design issue and not a game mechanic issue. First of all there is to my knowledge only two maps at the moment where this question is even relevant as only lost temple and metalopolis have enough expansions for it to even be a theoretical possibility to take a fifth base.
On metalopolis if you spawn on top and bottom respectively then there is every reason to take 5+ bases. The map really encourages it. Beyond that though there is some issue with taking many bases but mainly this is due to the layout of the maps. Actually it is because of the highground+ramp on the empty starting positions that messes it up because mobility is ridiculously constricted if you are holding two starting positions. I think issues like these are a question of map design though solely.
|
Another point I just thought of while watching some replays is that high ground dmg modifiers are necessary if we want to see more long games. Right now the current theme is games that last around 10 minutes because what happens is that once mains start expiring and more expansions start getting thrown down it becomes more difficult to hold all of your buildings.
A consequence of not being able to hold high ground mid to late game with fewer units is that you must have your entire army in one ball in a position to intercept the enemy at all times. If one player is able to catch an enemy off guard and destroy half of his army then the game is usually instantly over. This creates a situation of little suspense. There is one big battle and then the game is over. These battles usually occur during the midgame or early late game and therefor the games also end at around the same time.
It is impossible to defend any part of your base once you start to lose numbers to your enemy.
The ability to turtle and recover or switch tech is essential to high drama games.
|
The high ground advantage in SC2 is obviously a change from broodwar.. but we still need to get past the idea of it being exactly like broodwar as well.
Blizz has been on the route of awarding the aggressive player who can get quick map control. Really, what you have to do is just react to tanks. Usually, you have to worry most about being contained early game. Utilize strats such as drops, etc. and force the Terran to retreat.
Having to need sight to have full siege range is just another change, which is an obvious advantage for the player with air control... which is obviously what needs to be focused on then.
|
On May 12 2010 11:36 givemefive wrote:
Another point I just thought of while watching some replays is that high ground dmg modifiers are necessary if we want to see more long games. Right now the current theme is games that last around 10 minutes because what happens is that once mains start expiring and more expansions start getting thrown down it becomes more difficult to hold all of your buildings.
A consequence of not being able to hold high ground mid to late game with fewer units is that you must have your entire army in one ball in a position to intercept the enemy at all times. If one player is able to catch an enemy off guard and destroy half of his army then the game is usually instantly over. This creates a situation of little suspense. There is one big battle and then the game is over. These battles usually occur during the midgame or early late game and therefor the games also end at around the same time.
It is impossible to defend any part of your base once you start to lose numbers to your enemy.
The ability to turtle and recover or switch tech is essential to high drama games.
Pretty much agree with this, less damage output means the possibility of longer games. The thing is, since the damage reduction would be across the board, you can assure this remains balanced.
|
On May 12 2010 03:58 Befree wrote:
I had always thought the high ground miss chance was one of the worst things implemented in the game. I agree with there needing to be a high ground advantage, but there is no way that it can be like the BW one and be based on miss chance.
There's just no excuse for allowing battles to be influenced so much by random numbers.
the RNG argument is valid in games like WoW because you've like what 3 players per team? A couple of lucky dice rolls can change the game. SC will very rarely come down to a situation where a game is decided by whether a tiny number of units hit or miss. it all evens out due to a much larger number of dice rolls.
|
On May 12 2010 12:02 FeeL_ThE_RusH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 03:58 Befree wrote:
I had always thought the high ground miss chance was one of the worst things implemented in the game. I agree with there needing to be a high ground advantage, but there is no way that it can be like the BW one and be based on miss chance.
There's just no excuse for allowing battles to be influenced so much by random numbers. the RNG argument is valid in games like WoW because you've like what 3 players per team? A couple of lucky dice rolls can change the game. SC will very rarely come down to a situation where a game is decided by whether a tiny number of units hit or miss. it all evens out due to a much larger number of dice rolls.
Except it DOESN'T always even out. Losing a battle in SC1, no matter how insignificant it may seem, can have gigantic impacts on the outcome of the game, much like how losing a single worker can mean a great deal - however, unlike the worker example, the miss chance is entirely dictated by the RNG.
The law of larger numbers states that you will MOST LIKELY approach the theoretical probability as you have a larger number of dice rolls, but unfortunately, it's all just probability. Probability can go wrong.
|
There is no random factor in BW high ground advantage. You always know that you are at a disadvantage going uphill, but that you might come out ok if you execute it well. As the defender, you always know that no matter how good your placement is, the person attacking uphill still might be able to break you. If both players are aware of it there is no randomness involved.
The argument that "This isnt SC1. Its SC2." is the debate equivalent of someone who is pro-Christianity showing up at a debate and their argument is "I just know there is a God". The only thing worse than that is when they start to try to go to work on your ego by acting as if anyone who isnt digging the new mechanics are some kind of inferior player who cant adapt to this new exciting fast paced futuristic game. Its kinda like those people who say you are un-American if you disagree with one thing the government does. Suddenly you are an ungrateful un-american moron to them. But you could be a totally fine American, and love alot of the things about being in America, and still hate a couple of things about it too. Same is true for SC2. You could be totally into it and feel it is superior in many ways to SC1 but that doesnt mean you have to swallow every turd it shits out without questioning.
|
On May 12 2010 12:08 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 12:02 FeeL_ThE_RusH wrote:On May 12 2010 03:58 Befree wrote:
I had always thought the high ground miss chance was one of the worst things implemented in the game. I agree with there needing to be a high ground advantage, but there is no way that it can be like the BW one and be based on miss chance.
There's just no excuse for allowing battles to be influenced so much by random numbers. the RNG argument is valid in games like WoW because you've like what 3 players per team? A couple of lucky dice rolls can change the game. SC will very rarely come down to a situation where a game is decided by whether a tiny number of units hit or miss. it all evens out due to a much larger number of dice rolls. Except it DOESN'T always even out. Losing a battle in SC1, no matter how insignificant it may seem, can have gigantic impacts on the outcome of the game, much like how losing a single worker can mean a great deal - however, unlike the worker example, the miss chance is entirely dictated by the RNG. The law of larger numbers states that you will MOST LIKELY approach the theoretical probability as you have a larger number of dice rolls, but unfortunately, it's all just probability. Probability can go wrong.
More likely than not if blizzard implemented the chance to miss they would do it the way they do it in WC3. If something has a 75% chance to hit in WC3, it would actually have like 60% the first hit, then 75% the next hit, then 85% the next hit, etc., until it hit, at which point it would reset back to the 60%. It always averaged out to whatever the % chance to hit said though, so obviously you would have to tweak the 60%, 75%, 85%, etc. to get the math right.
Basically it decreased the variance while keeping the % chance to hit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
