| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On June 18 2010 17:36 clickrush wrote: exactly. I find the new cliff advantage way better than the old one too because its more specific. Too bad you CAN actually see them, eh? | ||
|
TzTz
Germany511 Posts
| ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
Well i love the current highground mechanic On June 18 2010 17:22 Cut[e]Paper wrote: "You cant hit what you cant see" I just don't like it being the ONLY highground mechanic. There needs to be an advantage for the defender on the high ground, even if the attacker has sight. I don't like the random miss chances from bw, nor does blizzard, but i would definitely like to see something like a 20% percent damage reduction. A percentage in damage reduction isn't random and is more importantly, easy to understand. However this post makes a great point that it wouldn't be easy to immediately identify what is going on for newer players. I can't really think of a proper solution for this, but I'm pretty sure that any visual indication of this damage reduction would have to come by changing the appearance of the unit on the low ground that is attacking the high ground. Sure we could have a small -20% indication every time an attack hits but i think that might make too much clutter. Imo, there should be a sort of visual change on the low ground units that are attacking the highground. For example an aura of red could surround each unit that is currently attacking a unit on the highground. This would be turned ON by default but could easily be turned off in the options. This way newer players would get the red aura and figure out what it means. And if the player then doesn't feel a need for it he can go to the options and switch it off. | ||
|
Xlancer
United States126 Posts
On June 18 2010 17:22 Cut[e]Paper wrote: "You cant hit what you cant see" I completly agree with this ^^ Most replies to this post seem to just be repeating the same old arguments we've all heard/read before, so I'll just remake my arguement in defense if SC2's "high ground advantage" system. I was in the US Marine Corps for 5 years so I know how "high ground advantage" works in the real world, and guess what... it works exactly like SC2's does. If you can see your target, you can hit it; if you can't, you can't.(unless, of course, you have an indirect fire weapon--which no SC2 unit has at the moment) Elevation has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the accuracy of direct fire weapons. I really don't understand why people want Blizzard to cling to an absurd and unrealistic "high ground advantage" system. StarCraft II's new system is far superior. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
"Hey, look! I can see stuff but my units don't attack 'em! What's going on, I can't even click on them! Is that's a bug?!" Current high-ground mechanic already has the "issue" you're trying to force on miss percentage. And let's just ignore that there are going to be tool-tips on loading screen, tutorials, single player and all this stuff that is supposed to help to learn game mechanics for new player. | ||
|
shawabawa
United Kingdom417 Posts
On June 18 2010 17:55 InRaged wrote: Oh, this is so made-up issue does it even worth it's own thread for discussion? "Hey, look! I can see stuff but my units don't attack 'em! What's going on, I can't even click on them! Is that's a bug?!" Current high-ground mechanic already has the "issue" you're trying to force on miss percentage. And let's just ignore that there are going to be tool-tips on loading screen, tutorials, single player and all this stuff that is supposed to help to learn game mechanics for new player. you can see them but they're greyed out, it's very obvious why you can't shoot them... | ||
|
reprise
Canada316 Posts
| ||
|
alphaentity
United States525 Posts
On June 18 2010 17:55 Xlancer wrote: I completly agree with this ^^ Most replies to this post seem to just be repeating the same old arguments we've all heard/read before, so I'll just remake my arguement in defense if SC2's "high ground advantage" system. I was in the US Marine Corps for 5 years so I know how "high ground advantage" works in the real world, and guess what... it works exactly like SC2's does. If you can see your target, you can hit it; if you can't, you can't.(unless, of course, you have an indirect fire weapon--which no SC2 unit has at the moment) Elevation has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the accuracy of direct fire weapons. I really don't understand why people want Blizzard to cling to an absurd and unrealistic "high ground advantage" system. StarCraft II's new system is far superior. Not to discredit ur service in the US Marine Corps, but wikipedia lists a few more advantages in high vs low ground battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_ground That wiki post actually has a few good suggestions. The following thoughts are for an army that already has sight of the cliff (I think without sight, the current method is perfect). range -- reduce range of low ground army to simulate reduction of visibility-- this can be shown using the range radius thingy or some other visual cue -- (or longer range for high ground army) rate of fire -- reduce the firing speed of low ground army to simulate the fatigue of shooting up. Other things that have been discussed: miss percentage -- have a miss percentage for low ground army (a la bw) damage reduction -- have a % damage reduced -- I actually don't like this as much since if you hit something, u would just hit it. To get at the OPs question -- What else (mechanics) can we play with? A true brainstorm should list out all possibilities no matter how stupid it might seem. Go at it! | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
On June 18 2010 18:12 shawabawa wrote: you can see them but they're greyed out, it's very obvious why you can't shoot them... They really should leave it at pitch black instead of showing you the unit | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On June 18 2010 18:12 shawabawa wrote: you can see them but they're greyed out, it's very obvious why you can't shoot them... Obvious for you, because you know this mechanic. But really, you can't shoot them because game designer said so. You miss them for same reason. There's nothing that makes one less or more obvious than other. Does it makes sense for new player that game says player with high ground has advantage, but in actuality you get steamrolled as if fight was on plain ground? Being not obvious for new players is one of the worst excuses to not implement miss chance I've ever seen reprise, luck is always one of them. Getting lucky with starting locations. Being lucky that scout missed your dropship and so on. There are tons of luck inside and outside of the game that affect game results. Besides, high-ground miss chance is a controllable luck - you know that your forces will be at certain disadvantage and you always have a choice of when to attack and whether to attack at all. | ||
|
TerranUp16
United States88 Posts
On June 18 2010 17:10 lololol wrote: It's very clear visually, when a unit misses in BW. The only exception is non-homing attacks against a moving target(and the vulture attack is the only one that comes to mind). They can also use the "miss" sign above unit heads that's in WC3 to make it even more obvious. Basically this. WC3 went so far as to thwack users over the head with the fact that their units missed when it happened. Doesn't look great, but we could sit here and brainstorm thousands of ways to do that in a prettier fashion. Really, if that is the issue any competent dev team is going to find a way to overcome it. | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
The BW high ground mechanic wasn't invisible...you could SEE your shots missing..... If not that, HP bars anyone? Is it really that pro to notice this sort of thing? 1. A shot landed next to the target 2. Check and notice that target took no damage 3. ?????rocket science????? Even if you both are noobs and niether of you micro and just fire at each other 1v1 across a cliff, it's not terribly hard to notice that gee, for some reason my unit died and his got away with ~30% hp. I wonder what the hell happened? Yes, because projectiles curving up a cliff is terribly visually sensible. The protoss stalker lasers are so advanced, they have path correction and homing capabilities as they hug the cliff and bend down or up. Go out on a battlefield in Somalia with a troupe of trained soldiers with wall hax goggles. Walk down the streets on the lower levels only and tell me the untrained AK-47's hiding in the rooftops don't have an advantage on you. QED. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
On June 18 2010 17:55 Xlancer wrote: I completly agree with this ^^ Most replies to this post seem to just be repeating the same old arguments we've all heard/read before, so I'll just remake my arguement in defense if SC2's "high ground advantage" system. I was in the US Marine Corps for 5 years so I know how "high ground advantage" works in the real world, and guess what... it works exactly like SC2's does. If you can see your target, you can hit it; if you can't, you can't.(unless, of course, you have an indirect fire weapon--which no SC2 unit has at the moment) Elevation has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the accuracy of direct fire weapons. I really don't understand why people want Blizzard to cling to an absurd and unrealistic "high ground advantage" system. StarCraft II's new system is far superior. siege tanks? | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
and if someone attacks u from the high ground u can notice it just like u do in bw and u get a short look on his position and might be able to shoot back if u stand close to cliff in sc1 u can also actually sometimes see the target without him shooting because hes standing on the edge of the cliff sc1 system was 100% logical and sc2 is just garbage | ||
|
Deleted User 47542
1484 Posts
| ||
|
TzTz
Germany511 Posts
 Not seeing the units up the cliff makes no sense as well if you look at it that way... It's not like there are marines lying on the ground shooting at you... What matters is the gameplay aspect and not so much the realism. There would be lots of things that are not realistic in Starcraft, so don't even start with it. | ||
|
Marou
Germany1371 Posts
I think the way it is now is good even it's to much "all or nothing" in my regard. I'd like to try the attack speed reduction it was good idea that has been throwed down on a previous thread about the same topic, i don't know how it would feel but i'd like to compare the two mechanics and see wich one brings more fun | ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
On June 18 2010 16:54 Orange Goblin wrote: Games are mechanical systems with abstract visual and/or interface layers on top. You will always have things that aren't explained in the arbitrary visual layering. You might say that it is preferable to have most of the information readily available, but if you don't want the said system to be too abstract, or be a mismatch with the general visual design, some things will be subtle, no amount of game design will remedy this. It's just the way games work. High ground mechanics are completely fine in BW. The design choice in this case is do I or do I not tell the player things outside of the visuals (i.e. in the manual or in tutorials)? How forward do I want to be with the information? With a game like SC2, the obvious choice would be to be very forward with all kinds of information like this, and if Blizzard decided to implement something like the old system, it would be no problem whatsoever to incorporate this information into a tutorial or the manual. Seriously. If you play a strategy game of any sort and neglect to read the manual, and expect to win, or even understand the game fully; you're in dire need of more braincells. Yes, streamlining is all fine and dandy up to a point, but with gaming in general, that point swooshed by a few years ago. Catering to people with the attention-span of three-year-olds isn't ideal by any stretch of the imagination. Exactly. There are so many as important things that are not "seen", and it's fine. Example : Dragoons dealing half damage on marines. Either you are a casual player who doesn't know about build orders and would still make dragoons even if there is a visual animation telling they deal half-damage. Either you are a decent player and know about it. Same for stacked storms that do not add up damage. Same for splash damage (except vs protoss units that still have shield). What I mean is casual players are 95+% of the players, and they will play campaigns, or very low level online games, and will not pay attention to details like people on TL would. I just played a TvP against one of my friend (he played the campaigns and around 1000 games on bnet, told me after I raped him : "god i didnt know mines could detect dark templars...." So whatever the implementation, casual players don't pay attention to high ground / splash, and other details (actually these are not details, but they are for casual players). Skilled players will know about this even with no visual effects. I don't want a game with thousands of visual effects that make the fight unclear overall. Please don't turn SC2 in another W3  | ||
|
zomgzergrush
United States923 Posts
It's not that damn hard to look at an HP bar changing or not. I refuse to believe that this is such a gosu thing to deal with. Does everyone in this thread not notice that in BW, projectiles simply landed off target if they missed? Is it really so hard for you to notice? Did you guys just start your first video game in your life here in sc2? | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
This isn't "guys up in a building shooting down at you in the street." This is just silly. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
RSL Revival
TriGGeR vs Cure
ByuN vs Rogue
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Maru vs MaxPax
BSL
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Afreeca Starleague
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
