|
On June 18 2010 18:26 alphaentity wrote: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_groundThat 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!
I never said that there wasn't a "high ground advantage," my whole post was about how absurd BW's 50% miss system was. To reiterate, elevation has zero effect on the accuracy(or damage) of direct fire weapons. As far as fatiege goes, I think you bring up a great point about perhaps reducing all units speeds by 50%(or so) as they advance up to the high ground.
|
On June 18 2010 20:51 kajeus wrote: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.
...
All you need to understand is that if your units are on higher ground than your opponents' units, they stand a better chance at winning an engagement. Aka, inferior number of forces (fewer Siege Tanks for example) may be ok. Alternately, if you are the one assaulting from lower ground, you are going to need a superior force (more Siege Tanks for example).
|
On June 18 2010 21:06 TerranUp16 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 20:51 kajeus wrote: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. ... All you need to understand is that if your units are on higher ground than your opponents' units, they stand a better chance at winning an engagement. Aka, inferior number of forces (fewer Siege Tanks for example) may be ok. Alternately, if you are the one assaulting from lower ground, you are going to need a superior force (more Siege Tanks for example).
So TL.net, home of competitive Starcraft, is not a place where we want to understand the EXACT workings of the high-ground mechanic? 30% or 50% -- who cares? We're ok with just sort of shrugging our shoulders about it? I'm disappointed in you guys. How do I know how many tanks are enough if everything is left to random numbers and math that nobody can understand?
I still don't know how far up the ramp the bad guys need to go before they're so high I can't hit them half the time.
|
Reading this thread is one of the most facepalm inducing things I have done in weeks.
I'm not even going to participate in a discussion that has reached these levels of retardation.
This is a bad thread and you should feel bad.
|
On June 18 2010 21:13 sob3k wrote:
Reading this thread is one of the most facepalm inducing things I have done in weeks.
I'm not even going to participate in a discussion that has reached these levels of retardation.
This is a bad thread and you should feel bad.
So much angarrrr from the angry nerds.
|
On June 18 2010 21:11 kajeus wrote:
So TL.net, home of competitive Starcraft, is not a place where we want to understand the EXACT workings of the high-ground mechanic? 30% or 50% -- who cares? We're ok with just sort of shrugging our shoulders about it? I'm disappointed in you guys. How do I know how many tanks are enough if everything is left to random numbers and math that nobody can understand?
I still don't know how far up the ramp the bad guys need to go before they're so high I can't hit them half the time.
Rather than gratifying that with the response you'll actually want, I'm going to teach you how to fish. Open up the Campaign Editor and go lab it yourself. Do this with Dawn of War 2 all the time with far inferior tools for labbing.
On a side note, you're assuming that if such a mechanic were in SC2 that Blizzard would absolutely refuse to divulge the details of it. Probably a bad assumption, no?
|
On June 18 2010 21:03 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 20:57 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 20:51 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:44 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:19 pzea469 wrote: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. 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:On June 18 2010 20:29 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:14 kajeus wrote: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. 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. 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. 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.
You are talking about yes/no preferences I am talking about how a given element impacts game play.
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".
You don't need to know the exact value of the gravitational constant to know that if you drop something it accelerates as it falls. Mathematically it's as simple as recognizing your units have a propensity to miss if they fire uphill.
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.
There is no warrant for your claim that not knowing the miss-rate function creates a generic low ground disadvantage. You are only disadvantaged if you don't know there's a chance to miss in the first place. Players who are ignorant about game play elements should be disadvantaged for their ignorance.
In terms of competition a better high ground would mechanic increase the tactical significance of high ground and by extension army position on a given map. SC2 maps don't offer the strategic diversity that BW maps do b/c of this very reason. Take Heartbreak Ridge as an example...
|
On June 18 2010 21:16 TerranUp16 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 21:11 kajeus wrote:
So TL.net, home of competitive Starcraft, is not a place where we want to understand the EXACT workings of the high-ground mechanic? 30% or 50% -- who cares? We're ok with just sort of shrugging our shoulders about it? I'm disappointed in you guys. How do I know how many tanks are enough if everything is left to random numbers and math that nobody can understand?
I still don't know how far up the ramp the bad guys need to go before they're so high I can't hit them half the time. Rather than gratifying that with the response you'll actually want, I'm going to teach you how to fish. Open up the Campaign Editor and go lab it yourself. Do this with Dawn of War 2 all the time with far inferior tools for labbing. On a side note, you're assuming that if such a mechanic were in SC2 that Blizzard would absolutely refuse to divulge the details of it. Probably a bad assumption, no?
No, I'm assuming that they have had a game out for 12 years and apparently not divulged the details of it. I'm also asserting that even if you could answer the ramp question, you answer would still be completely absurd.
Why bother to respond if your response is going to be so useless? I'm not going to lab anything because I don't really care how BW works -- I've moved on to newer things.
|
On June 18 2010 16:30 USn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 16:10 xOchievax wrote:Consider what somebody new to brood war sees when he attacks from low ground: exactly what he sees when he attacks from anywhere else. There is absolutely no in-game indicator that his units are missing, except that for some reason he loses the fight. This is incorrect. Attacks in BW have an animation on the target the attack is hitting. If the attack misses the animation is off of the unit. If it hits the animation is on the unit. Considering how much uncertainty has already been expressed in this thread about how the old mechanic worked I think it's clear that wasn't serving it's function. Show nested quote +If this were a problem it could be:
1. Explained in the helpfull tips thing at the bottom of the screen before games.
2. Be explained in part of a tutorial.
3. Be explained in part of the campaign introduction. This really misses the point. You shouldn't have rely on crutches like tutorials, the manual, or tips screens to make your game work as it appears to... instead, you should make it work as it appears to. I also really question the effectiveness of these methods. People rely on what's on the screen when they're playing, that's the center of their learning experience. When you fight human nature, nature wins, especially when you're fighting it with text.
No, that's stupid. You shouldn't expect to know everything about a game without doing ANY research.
|
On June 18 2010 21:17 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 21:03 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:57 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 20:51 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:44 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:19 pzea469 wrote: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. 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:On June 18 2010 20:29 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:14 kajeus wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. You are talking about yes/no preference, not "we." Show nested quote +
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".
You don't need to know the exact value of the gravitational constant to know that if you drop something it accelerates as it falls. Mathematically it's as simple as recognizing your units have a propensity to miss if they fire uphill. There is no warrant for your claim that not knowing the miss-rate function creates a generic low ground disadvantage. You are only disadvantaged if you don't know there's a chance to miss in the first place. Players who are ignorant about game play elements should be disadvantaged for their ignorance. In terms of competition a better high ground would mechanic increase the tactical significance of high ground and by extension army position on a given map. SC2 maps don't offer the strategic diversity that BW maps do b/c of this very reason. Take Heartbreak Ridge as an example...
You people refine build orders down to the SECOND, and you're going to tell me that it doesn't matter whether you know if your units are hitting 70% of the time or 50% of the time?
SC2 requires you to build air/gigantic units for vision. It's just a different kind of thing. It's still got depth -- just not the "depth" you're familiar with.
|
On June 18 2010 21:23 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 21:17 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 21:03 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:57 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 20:51 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:44 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:19 pzea469 wrote: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. 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:On June 18 2010 20:29 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:14 kajeus wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. You are talking about yes/no preference, not "we."
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".
You don't need to know the exact value of the gravitational constant to know that if you drop something it accelerates as it falls. Mathematically it's as simple as recognizing your units have a propensity to miss if they fire uphill. There is no warrant for your claim that not knowing the miss-rate function creates a generic low ground disadvantage. You are only disadvantaged if you don't know there's a chance to miss in the first place. Players who are ignorant about game play elements should be disadvantaged for their ignorance. In terms of competition a better high ground would mechanic increase the tactical significance of high ground and by extension army position on a given map. SC2 maps don't offer the strategic diversity that BW maps do b/c of this very reason. Take Heartbreak Ridge as an example... You people refine build orders down to the SECOND, and you're going to tell me that it doesn't matter whether you know if your units are hitting 70% of the time or 50% of the time? SC2 requires you to build air/gigantic units for vision. It's just a different kind of thing. It's still got depth -- just not the "depth" you're familiar with.
It would be nice to know the exact function but it isn't necessary. Not knowing hasn't destroyed BW at either high or low level play. Even newbies quickly intuit units at a high ground have an advantage. By the time the mid-game hits everyone will have units for high ground vision; my point is the current high ground system reduces the impact maps (and by extension unit positioning) have on game play.
EDIT: clarity
|
I like the new mechanic, but i think units on low ground (except Colossi) should get -1 RANGE while shooting uphill (the range they would have to shoot up the cliff, so if it was 2 levels difference there would be a -2 range penalty).
|
On June 18 2010 21:26 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 21:23 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 21:17 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 21:03 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:57 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 20:51 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:44 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:19 pzea469 wrote: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. 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:On June 18 2010 20:29 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:14 kajeus wrote:
[quote]
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 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. 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 Why do you like it so much? We're talking about yes/no preferences. You are talking about yes/no preference, not "we."
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".
You don't need to know the exact value of the gravitational constant to know that if you drop something it accelerates as it falls. Mathematically it's as simple as recognizing your units have a propensity to miss if they fire uphill. There is no warrant for your claim that not knowing the miss-rate function creates a generic low ground disadvantage. You are only disadvantaged if you don't know there's a chance to miss in the first place. Players who are ignorant about game play elements should be disadvantaged for their ignorance. In terms of competition a better high ground would mechanic increase the tactical significance of high ground and by extension army position on a given map. SC2 maps don't offer the strategic diversity that BW maps do b/c of this very reason. Take Heartbreak Ridge as an example... You people refine build orders down to the SECOND, and you're going to tell me that it doesn't matter whether you know if your units are hitting 70% of the time or 50% of the time? SC2 requires you to build air/gigantic units for vision. It's just a different kind of thing. It's still got depth -- just not the "depth" you're familiar with. It would be nice to know the exact function but it isn't necessary. Not knowing hasn't destroyed BW at either high or low level play. Even newbies quickly intuit units at a high ground have an advantage. By the time the mid-game hits everyone will have units for high ground vision; my point is the current high ground system reduces the impact maps have on game play.
So what we're saying is that you prefer an amorphous system with hard-to-understand mechanics, and I prefer a system with clear rules and none of this "magic ramp" junk. Seems like we're talking about preferences to me.
By the way, what you say about SC2 is not true -- people frequently have to build and move units specifically to gain high-ground sight.
NOTE: high ground is still relevant to unit positioning and map design. Just not in the way it used to be.
|
On June 18 2010 21:30 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 21:26 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 21:23 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 21:17 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 21:03 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:57 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 20:51 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:44 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:19 pzea469 wrote: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. 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:On June 18 2010 20:29 InRaged wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. You are talking about yes/no preference, not "we."
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".
You don't need to know the exact value of the gravitational constant to know that if you drop something it accelerates as it falls. Mathematically it's as simple as recognizing your units have a propensity to miss if they fire uphill. There is no warrant for your claim that not knowing the miss-rate function creates a generic low ground disadvantage. You are only disadvantaged if you don't know there's a chance to miss in the first place. Players who are ignorant about game play elements should be disadvantaged for their ignorance. In terms of competition a better high ground would mechanic increase the tactical significance of high ground and by extension army position on a given map. SC2 maps don't offer the strategic diversity that BW maps do b/c of this very reason. Take Heartbreak Ridge as an example... You people refine build orders down to the SECOND, and you're going to tell me that it doesn't matter whether you know if your units are hitting 70% of the time or 50% of the time? SC2 requires you to build air/gigantic units for vision. It's just a different kind of thing. It's still got depth -- just not the "depth" you're familiar with. It would be nice to know the exact function but it isn't necessary. Not knowing hasn't destroyed BW at either high or low level play. Even newbies quickly intuit units at a high ground have an advantage. By the time the mid-game hits everyone will have units for high ground vision; my point is the current high ground system reduces the impact maps have on game play. So what we're saying is that you prefer an amorphous system with hard-to-understand mechanics, and I prefer a system with clear rules and none of this "magic ramp" junk. Seems like we're talking about preferences to me.
Simply b/c you don't understand it doesn't mean its hard to understand; units on low ground will sometime miss when shooting units that are on higher ground. I'll repeat my gravity example: you don't need to know the gravitational constant to know that things accelerate when you drop them. And it's not a preference; you haven't answered my game play argument about maps and unit positioning.
By the way, what you say about SC2 is not true -- people frequently have to build and move units specifically to gain high-ground sight.
Ya but this was already answered in my previous post...
Adding an additional mechanic would increase the complexity of the game. Furthermore there is no reason that the miss chance has to be an unknown function i.e. Blizzard could say units on low ground will have a 10% miss chance. Then you would know what the miss rate is and it would clear and easy to understand.
EDIT: actually I'd be in favor of the miss mechanic over the vision mechanic, having both might not be a good idea...I do think the miss mechanic is more strategically fecund that the vision one b/c you still have vision issues in terms of the units firing only after they've been hit with a miss-system
|
i dont know if anyones thrown this out there but would mixing some of these ideas like minor damage reduction and minor hit chance % lowered + units attacking up a cliff have less range than they normally do, think about it, your shooting upwards as well as across. i dont know i think the BW one works just fine
|
i have a feeling that people saying that a highground mechanic is unnecessary and horrible either didn't play bw, or simply don't understand how much depth this mechanic adds to the game, or both. I don't want to say that people who didn't play bw shouldn't have an opinion, but please think twice before calling it stupid.
I understand how one can see a random chance factor in a competitive game and say "thats dumb and doesn't fit" but forget about the fact that its a random chance for a sec and try to just think about it as a defenders advantage. Now i hope we can mostly agree on the fact that a defenders advantage on the high ground is a good thing and that it made bw a much deeper game. Now if we can agree on that, we can then argue on HOW this defenders advantage on the ramp should be implemented. Whether it be a missing percentage or a damage reduction or whatever. For example, I favor the damage reduction, because i feel its easier to understand and less luck-based. However the problem SC2 has is that it has NO defenders advantage except sight. This advantage quickly goes away as soon as the attacker has a flying unit or simply charges the ramp and then attacks. In bw the defenders advantage was present throughout the game and allowed for great moves like retreating to a highground position of the map and forcing ur opponent who had an advantage on the low ground to think twice before engaging. SC2 could be a much deeper game if such a highground mechanic were implemented.
We can discuss HOW it should be implemented, but we all should really agree on the fact that it needs a real highground advantage.
And stop talking about modern realism. It's a strategy game, and a highground mechanic besides just sight would add depth.
|
On June 18 2010 21:37 space_yes wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 21:30 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 21:26 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 21:23 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 21:17 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 21:03 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:57 space_yes wrote:On June 18 2010 20:51 kajeus wrote:On June 18 2010 20:44 InRaged wrote:On June 18 2010 20:19 pzea469 wrote:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. 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 Why do you like it so much? We're talking about yes/no preferences. You are talking about yes/no preference, not "we."
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".
You don't need to know the exact value of the gravitational constant to know that if you drop something it accelerates as it falls. Mathematically it's as simple as recognizing your units have a propensity to miss if they fire uphill. There is no warrant for your claim that not knowing the miss-rate function creates a generic low ground disadvantage. You are only disadvantaged if you don't know there's a chance to miss in the first place. Players who are ignorant about game play elements should be disadvantaged for their ignorance. In terms of competition a better high ground would mechanic increase the tactical significance of high ground and by extension army position on a given map. SC2 maps don't offer the strategic diversity that BW maps do b/c of this very reason. Take Heartbreak Ridge as an example... You people refine build orders down to the SECOND, and you're going to tell me that it doesn't matter whether you know if your units are hitting 70% of the time or 50% of the time? SC2 requires you to build air/gigantic units for vision. It's just a different kind of thing. It's still got depth -- just not the "depth" you're familiar with. It would be nice to know the exact function but it isn't necessary. Not knowing hasn't destroyed BW at either high or low level play. Even newbies quickly intuit units at a high ground have an advantage. By the time the mid-game hits everyone will have units for high ground vision; my point is the current high ground system reduces the impact maps have on game play. So what we're saying is that you prefer an amorphous system with hard-to-understand mechanics, and I prefer a system with clear rules and none of this "magic ramp" junk. Seems like we're talking about preferences to me. Simply b/c you don't understand it doesn't mean its hard to understand; units on low ground will sometime miss when shooting units that are on higher ground. I'll repeat my gravity example: you don't need to know the gravitational constant to know that things accelerate when you drop them. And it's not a preference; you haven't answered my game play argument about maps and unit positioning.
Um... what makes you think I don't get the basic idea of the BW high ground mechanic? I get what you're saying, but this is competitive BW we're talking about. You don't think engineers use the gravitational constant?
I *did* answer your gameplay argument. Gameplay is deep in a different way with the new mechanic. The lack of certainty and the magic ramp problem were not worth the vague "improvements in map complexity and unit positioning" of BW.
Show nested quote +
By the way, what you say about SC2 is not true -- people frequently have to build and move units specifically to gain high-ground sight.
Ya but this was already answered in my previous post... Adding an additional mechanic would increase the complexity of the game. Furthermore there is no reason that the miss chance has to be an unknown function i.e. Blizzard could say units on low ground will have a 10% miss chance. Then you would know what the miss rate is and it would clear and easy to understand.
Yeah, but you still have the magic ramp problem. Moreover, I'm not sure arbitrary complexity is a good thing. And I don't like randomness to play such a large role in my competitive strategy games.
|
On June 18 2010 21:40 pzea469 wrote:
i have a feeling that people saying that a highground mechanic is unnecessary and horrible either didn't play bw, or simply don't understand how much depth this mechanic adds to the game, or both. I don't want to say that people who didn't play bw shouldn't have an opinion, but please think twice before calling it stupid.
I understand how one can see a random chance factor in a competitive game and say "thats dumb and doesn't fit" but forget about the fact that its a random chance for a sec and try to just think about it as a defenders advantage. Now i hope we can mostly agree on the fact that a defenders advantage on the high ground is a good thing and that it made bw a much deeper game. Now if we can agree on that, we can then argue on HOW this defenders advantage on the ramp should be implemented. Whether it be a missing percentage or a damage reduction or whatever. For example, I favor the damage reduction, because i feel its easier to understand and less luck-based. However the problem SC2 has is that it has NO defenders advantage except sight. This advantage quickly goes away as soon as the attacker has a flying unit or simply charges the ramp and then attacks. In bw the defenders advantage was present throughout the game and allowed for great moves like retreating to a highground position of the map and forcing ur opponent who had an advantage on the low ground to think twice before engaging. SC2 could be a much deeper game if such a highground mechanic were implemented.
We can discuss HOW it should be implemented, but we all should really agree on the fact that it needs a real highground advantage.
And stop talking about modern realism. It's a strategy game, and a highground mechanic besides just sight would add depth.
I prefer the range suggestion proposed a couple of posts back. That makes tons of sense and would be a fun mechanic.
But I think the current SC2 system is pretty good, as well.
I did play BW, but I am apparently more demanding of it than all of you. 
It's not like if you played BW you think every single thing about BW was absolutely perfect. That game had some serious flaws.
|
On June 18 2010 21:40 pzea469 wrote:
i have a feeling that people saying that a highground mechanic is unnecessary and horrible either didn't play bw, or simply don't understand how much depth this mechanic adds to the game, or both. I don't want to say that people who didn't play bw shouldn't have an opinion, but please think twice before calling it stupid.
Seriously
|
Nobody is saying "a highground mechanic is unnecessary and horrible."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
