EPTThe problem with high ground advantage - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
| ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:11 InRaged wrote: As silly as units shooting through buildings and each other totally ignoring friendly fire. This is a game, not a real life war simulator. And lack of adequate high ground advantage make it inferior game. It reduces map diversity and reduces game's strategy depth. I completely disagree. It just feels wrong. This random-number "mechanic" is unintuitive, unappealing, and uninteresting. Good riddance. | ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:11 InRaged wrote: As silly as units shooting through buildings and each other totally ignoring friendly fire. This is a game, not a real life war simulator. And lack of adequate high ground advantage make it inferior game. It reduces map diversity and reduces game's strategy depth. I completely agree on everything you have said. I'm not a fan of the miss system and would prefer a damage percentage reduction, but even the miss system would be better then the way it currently is. | ||
|
SchOOl_VicTIm
Greece2394 Posts
High ground advantage in BW is a huge huge deal in terms of tactical play. I can't bother explaining it in more depth, since there have been a few threads already that this has been discussed extensively. No high ground advantage makes the game ridiculously poorer and this is more than obvious in every experienced player's eyes. | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:14 kajeus wrote: I completely disagree. It just feels wrong. This random-number "mechanic" is unintuitive, unappealing, and uninteresting. Good riddance. Who cares how it *feels* for you? Not having high-ground advantage is unintuitive. If it was unappealing people would forget about it long time ago. And uninteresting? Are you kidding me? Lack of adequate mechanic renders wide ramps concept useless. Do I have to count for you how many BW maps had this feature as a key point of the map? Completely throwing such strategic feature for no reason whatsoever doesn't make game more interesting, but quite opposite. But no, let's not argue this very clear points. Let's just post how it *feels* for us without presenting any support for our feelings whatsoever. That's so much more fitting for internet discussion ;P | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:29 InRaged wrote: Who cares how it *feels* for you? Not having high-ground advantage is unintuitive. If it was unappealing people would forget about it long time ago. And uninteresting? Are you kidding me? Lack of adequate mechanic renders wide ramps concept useless. Do I have to count for you how many BW maps had this feature as a key point of the map? Completely throwing such strategic feature for no reason whatsoever doesn't make game more interesting, but quite opposite. But no, let's not argue this very clear points. Let's just post how it *feels* for us without presenting any support for our feelings whatsoever. That's so much more fitting for internet discussion ;P I guess we could just be overexcited douchebags about it instead. This BW mechanic sucks, dude. It feels stupid, it looks stupid, and I would prefer a better system. Sorry. | ||
|
lololol
5198 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. Are you for real? You can see and shoot at someone from high ground with a direct fire weapon, but they can't see you? How exactly does this happen? The only absurd and unrealistic thing here is what you're posting, which makes me seriously doubt you've ever served in the military. If they have line of sight, so do you. High ground grants cover and guess what if they are firing from cover with a direct fire weapon that makes them hard to hit, not invisible. Edit: Also, realism for the sake of realism in games, which are unrealistic by default is pretty stupid. Games are about gameplay and any form of realism must be for the sake of gameplay, not the opposite. It would be obviously a bad idea to make marines build in 18 years, instead of 25 seconds. | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
| ||
|
pzea469
United States1520 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:31 kajeus wrote: I guess we could just be overexcited douchebags about it instead. This BW mechanic sucks, dude. It feels stupid, it looks stupid, and I would prefer a better system. Sorry. R u saying that it sucks because of the randomness of missing percentage? or are u saying that you don't want sc2 to have any advantage for the highground defender besides lack of vision? Give me a little more than "it feels stupid, it looks stupid" | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:39 lololol wrote: If they have line of sight, so do you. High ground grants cover and guess what cover makes a target hard to hit. Yeah... like when some guys shoot at you from the top of a ramp, it's so much harder to hit them... | ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:19 pzea469 wrote: I completely agree on everything you have said. I'm not a fan of the miss system and would prefer a damage percentage reduction, but even the miss system would be better then the way it currently is. I find situation quite funny actually. The main reason Blizzard don't implement it according to their own words is because it introduces randomness into competition (and they don't even bother answering about non-random mechanic). And so far, if I'm not mistaken, we had all the cream of the crop competitive players like absolutely unanimously agreeing that having at least random mechanic is better than nothing. So basically we have developers being sort of nanny for competitive players saying what's better for them On June 18 2010 20:31 kajeus wrote: I guess we could just be overexcited douchebags about it instead. This BW mechanic sucks, dude. It feels stupid, it looks stupid, and I would prefer a better system. Sorry. Perfect internet warrior. 0 arguments, only name-calling. | ||
|
Mr.Pyro
Denmark959 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:11 InRaged wrote: As silly as units shooting through buildings and each other totally ignoring friendly fire. This is a game, not a real life war simulator. And lack of adequate high ground advantage make it inferior game. It reduces map diversity and reduces game's strategy depth. Agree a thousand times. This is not an issue with "realism" it's just to make your base defendable and to have something to make maps more unique. | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:44 InRaged wrote: I find situation quite funny actually. The main reason Blizzard don't implement it according to their own words is because it introduces randomness into competition (and they don't even bother answering about non-random mechanic). And so far, if I'm not mistaken, we had all the cream of the crop competitive players like absolutely unanimously agreeing that having at least random mechanic is better than nothing. So basically we have developers being sort of nanny for competitive players saying what's better for them Perfect internet warrior. 0 arguments, only name-calling. I got a great argument. You just don't want to accept it cuz you so angry. The mechanic does not work very well. It is (i.e., feels) arbitrary, unintuitive, and (most importantly) NOT FUN to a lot of people (perhaps not diehard TL BW fanatics). No one really understands it, even 12 years after the release of BW, as evidenced by, among other things, that thread I posted a link to. I am all for strategic depth, but this mechanic is half-hearted and ultimately anti-competitive. I always hated it while playing BW, and I'm glad it's gone. | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:44 MaD.pYrO wrote: Agree a thousand times. This is not an issue with "realism" it's just to make your base defendable and to have something to make maps more unique. Hey, all anybody is doing is saying it feels stupid and responding to those who defend it by saying it's "realistic". I think "high ground" in general is a little bit too complicated a concept for SC to handle in a generally satisfying way. Arbitrary miss-percentages are pretty stupid, have rules that are hard to understand, and don't contribute to gameplay in a good way, in my opinion. There are a million better ways to make bases "defendable" and maps "more unique". | ||
|
space_yes
United States548 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:51 kajeus wrote: I got a great argument. You just don't want to accept it cuz you so angry. The mechanic does not work very well. It is (i.e., feels) arbitrary, unintuitive, and (most importantly) NOT FUN to a lot of people (perhaps not diehard TL BW fanatics). No one really understands it, even 12 years after the release of BW, as evidenced by, among other things, that thread I posted a link to. I am all for strategic depth, but this mechanic is half-hearted and ultimately anti-competitive. I always hated it while playing BW, and I'm glad it's gone. Your argument is entirely based off of your unsubstantiated feelings. Why is it not fun? Why does it feel arbitrary? Why is it anti-competitive? What evidence do you have that "the mechanic does not work very well" ? BW seems to have a lot of strategic depth* if you ask me.. * lol | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
if units are attacking uphill, they may miss. I must be so smart, if I can grasp such complex and unintuitive concepts! | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:57 space_yes wrote: Your argument is entirely based off of your unsubstantiated feelings. Why is it not fun? Why does it feel arbitrary? Why is it anti-competitive? What evidence do you have that "the mechanic does not work very well" ? BW seems to have a lot of strategic depth* if you ask me.. * lol Why do you like it so much? We're talking about yes/no preferences. It feels arbitrary because nobody understands why or, mathematically, how shooting up a ramp affects gameplay. It's arbitrary like making boulder doodads on maps give your units fire-breathing abilities. It comes out of nowhere and adds an arbitrary/unreliable layer of "depth". It's anti-competitive because it's unreliable. No one even knows what the real miss-rate is, so everyone faces a generic "disadvantage" on the low-ground that can't be properly figured out or understood by even the most fanatical of fans. I don't like chance to play a major role in strategy games, especially when it doesn't make intuitive sense when and to what extent chance is playing a role. | ||
|
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
On the defenders' side, most vision is given by flying units, so focus fire that medivac/overlord or use detection to get that observer that allows the stalkers to shoot uphill. Alternatively, focus fire down those zealots or zerglings that made it up the ramp to cut vision for the stalkers/hydralisks that are still below. I'm not just theorycrafting here either, this is stuff you actually see in games. | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On June 18 2010 21:00 lololol wrote: WARNING: The following requires at least 2 degrees in rocket science to understand: if units are attacking uphill, they may miss. I must be so smart, if I can grasp such complex and unintuitive concepts! Why do they miss? Your answer is: "It doesn't matter." I'm tellin ya, as a fellow player, that is an unsatisfying answer. What's definition of "high-ground"? How high up the ramp do you have to be before you're SO HIGH that I can't aim at you? This isn't so much a question of whether BW was a good game or not. It's a question of whether this mechanic is worthwhile in modern games. My vote is no. | ||
|
wintergt
Belgium1335 Posts
| ||
| ||
