|
On May 12 2010 12:19 Mellotron wrote:
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.
What? These "arguments" are all nonsense. It doesn't MATTER if both players are aware of it, because the outcome is ALWAYS entirely random. You may KNOW that you have a chance, but in the end, it comes down to the RNG.
It may change the mindsets of the players, but it is ultimately the RNG.
|
I didnt really think this idea through but wouldnt it work if high ground units had like +1 additional range against lower ground units or lower ground units -1 range against high ground units? This way there would be no randomness and it might actually lead to some interesting situations. Didnt see this anywhere yet so i thought i might as well post this idea. Let me know what y'all think.
edit: typo
|
RNG: with a lot of shots going off, it averages out
On May 11 2010 23:06 Mecha_cl wrote:
Holy shit, somebody in here besides me who isn't wearing rose tinted glasses otherwise known as Nostalgia. Yeah because BW is only good if you look at it through rose tinted glasses. Do you even know what site this is?
|
On May 12 2010 12:42 MamiyaOtaru wrote:RNG: with a lot of shots going off, it averages out Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 23:06 Mecha_cl wrote:
Holy shit, somebody in here besides me who isn't wearing rose tinted glasses otherwise known as Nostalgia. Yeah because BW is only good if you look at it through rose tinted glasses. Do you even know what site this is?
Except it doesn't.
|
On May 12 2010 12:22 Zeke50100 wrote:
What? These "arguments" are all nonsense. It doesn't MATTER if both players are aware of it, because the outcome is ALWAYS entirely random. You may KNOW that you have a chance, but in the end, it comes down to the RNG.
It may change the mindsets of the players, but it is ultimately the RNG.
If you flip a coin 100 times its gonna be pretty much 50 heads 50 tails.
With 10 units on each side, each firing multiple shots, you're gonna pretty much get the 50% miss when the battle finally ends.
But either way, most of us aren't talking about the implementation of a miss percentage vs percentage dmg reduction just a dmg reduction implementation in general.
|
On May 11 2010 22:36 kangur wrote:Show nested quote +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.
PONG WAS AWESOME. WHY DID YOU CHANGE PONG? NOW IT HAS COLORS AND MORE THAN TWO PLAYERS. WE DIDN'T NEED VOID RAYS IN PONG. STOP CHANGING THIS GAME. IT WAS FUN, AND BALANCED. WHY DID YOU CHANGE IT IF IT WAS BALANCED. WE SHOULD HAVE KEPT PONG FOREEEEEVERRRRR.
|
On May 12 2010 12:44 givemefive wrote:If you flip a coin 100 times its gonna be pretty much 50 heads 50 tails.
If you flip a coin 100 times, there is less than a 1% chance it will be 50/50
|
On May 12 2010 12:50 GWash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 12:44 givemefive wrote:If you flip a coin 100 times its gonna be pretty much 50 heads 50 tails.
If you flip a coin 100 times, there is less than a 1% chance it will be 50/50
Not to mention that "pretty much" 50/50 doesn't exactly cut it (Ahaha, there's a semi-pun :D)
|
Well we're talking about introducing risk to attacking uphill. I"d say miss percentages does a pretty good job of that.
|
On May 12 2010 12:52 givemefive wrote:
Well we're talking about introducing risk to attacking uphill. I"d say miss percentages does a pretty good job of that.
That's introducing risk, but at what cost?
|
Sieged Tanks > "high ground" that is all.
|
The downside is that if you find yourself in a hole where you need to fight out you never know what exactly will get you out of it.
I would actually be more comfortable with a straight up damage modifier rather than a miss percentage.
|
On May 12 2010 12:50 GWash wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2010 12:44 givemefive wrote:If you flip a coin 100 times its gonna be pretty much 50 heads 50 tails.
If you flip a coin 100 times, there is less than a 1% chance it will be 50/50
For one, adding a damage reduction is definitely a possibility for there to still be a high ground advantage that seems more obvious in the later portions of the game but not having randomness.
For two considering there are only 101 unique outcomes and 50/50 is going to be the most likely one, the chance would almost certainly be more then 1% although there is a reasonable amount of probability of outcomes like 55-45.
|
call me crazy
but, your saying that now with the ease of scan/ovies/obs sight is much easier now in sc2
arent these all bw units?
|
What's wrong with a percentage reducion In damage?
|
The problem I have with the current highground mechanic is that it provides less of an advantage the longer the game lasts. By late game, there is practically no advantage to be had from having the high ground, since you have so many ways of gaining vision. Yet, high ground should always provide some type of benefit. If it doesn't, then terrain is almost rendered meaningless and there is little gameplay variation to be had between maps.
But thinking about it, perhaps that is precisely the reason why Blizzard changed it. Perhaps they wanted to make terrain benefits less meaningful in order to simplify map balancing. In the original, it was nearly impossible to make a varied and interesting map without seriously upsetting the balance between races. Heck, to this day, Nostalgia remains the only map where all three matchups are in the 45-55 percent radius.....and many Zerg can attest that Nostalgia is far from balanced as far as modern gameplay is concerned. With terrain playing less of a role, it makes it much easier to create new varied maps without upsetting the balance.
Another thing to think about is that Blizzard seems to think that there should be periods where the advantage is negated, as opposed to the community mindset that high ground should have a persistant, non-changable effect. This in itself is not necessarilly wrong. The problem currently, however, is that players have no means of preventing vision (well, other then destroying the unit providing it, but that is easier said then done). Once a player has gained vision, that is that. Perhaps if players had a way to block vision, this mechanic would not be as detrimental to gameplay as it currently is.
|
On May 12 2010 13:13 DamonRJ wrote:
call me crazy
but, your saying that now with the ease of scan/ovies/obs sight is much easier now in sc2
arent these all bw units?
but having sight of the high ground in sc1 didn't win you the battle, nowadays it not only totally negates the high ground advantage, it to some extent gives the lowground person an opportunity to flank/surround units that are trying to take advantage of cliffs. but without comparing it to sc1 anymore, I agree that i don't like the current high ground advantage because as others have said, it doesn't promote risky play, or fast tech builds because you always have to basically keep up in unit count with your opponent, and once you lose your ability to defend 2 bases, you are stuck. this is also why it can grossly become overpowered for certain races because they can easily move their units faster than other races when it gets to 2+ base play.
|
On May 12 2010 13:42 Tom Phoenix wrote:
The problem I have with the current highground mechanic is that it provides less of an advantage the longer the game lasts. By late game, there is practically no advantage to be had from having the high ground, since you have so many ways of gaining vision. Yet, high ground should always provide some type of benefit. If it doesn't, then terrain is almost rendered meaningless and there is little gameplay variation to be had between maps.
But thinking about it, perhaps that is precisely the reason why Blizzard changed it. Perhaps they wanted to make terrain benefits less meaningful in order to simplify map balancing. In the original, it was nearly impossible to make a varied and interesting map without seriously upsetting the balance between races. Heck, to this day, Nostalgia remains the only map where all three matchups are in the 45-55 percent radius.....and many Zerg can attest that Nostalgia is far from balanced as far as modern gameplay is concerned. With terrain playing less of a role, it makes it much easier to create new varied maps without upsetting the balance.
Another thing to think about is that Blizzard seems to think that there should be periods where the advantage is negated, as opposed to the community mindset that high ground should have a persistant, non-changable effect. This in itself is not necessarilly wrong. The problem currently, however, is that players have no means of preventing vision (well, other then destroying the unit providing it, but that is easier said then done). Once a player has gained vision, that is that. Perhaps if players had a way to block vision, this mechanic would not be as detrimental to gameplay as it currently is.
OOoo, like the radar jammer's in C&C (i know i know C&C discussions in SC/SC2? wtf!) but those were pretty awesome to try to hide the map from opponents.
|
So high ground is useless if the opponent has vision, wich is easy, BUT this mechanic allows for easier map ballancing and more map diversity. The high/low ground is only relevant for the cliff jumping units, and if someone commits the bad mistake to charge against a high ground without sight.
There's still one advantage that applies - choke. To gain access to a high ground you have to climb a ramp with your army, it's a choke point, there is your defensive advantage. There are complains that the maps used don't allow a great arc for the defensive on the upper end of a ramp, but that's easy to solve.
Maybe the high/low ground mechanic as it is have advantages that are worth the difference from BW, try it out. On the other hand if there's a momment to test the old mechanic it is now, in beta.
|
Anything that stops the game from degenerating into a one big army battle is always a plus. Having a high ground advantage throughout the entire game will also help players stay in the game once they're army gets rolled. Imagine this, a protoss loses his main army, hides in his base and with some good storm drops (assuming storm gets buffed, fingers crossed but whatever), manages to claw his way back into the game.
Right now, once you have a bigger army, chances are, you instantly win once you gain sight of the high ground. Having an entire match played out on the basis of a single battle is pretty crap. And yea, those arguments about being safer while teching are plus points too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
