|
On June 18 2010 21:45 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +
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.
I'm glad this thread is taking the direction of "how to improve the high ground mechanic" but I think the ranged suggestion might introduce other balance issues and potentially create unassailable positions. I'm going to go with introducing a fixed, albeit small, miss chance or maybe some kind of miss function that decreases as you increase in proximity relative to the target.
|
On June 18 2010 20:39 lololol wrote:
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.
I wasn't basing my reasoning solely on "realism" because SC2 is, in fact, a game, as you also pointed out,(perhaps I shouldn't of even used real world examples in my post) but also on the fact that a it's just plain absurd for a game to give elevated units 50% dodge(making it suicide to attack). That just promotes stalemates for no reason--forcing players to just contain the other player while expanding their own bases rather than attack. Even though the current system still promotes stalemates for no reason(how can their stalker be shooting at my stalker if mine can't shoot back at theirs?) Now I at least have the ability to break the stalemate with an observer spotting the high ground for me instead of just being forced to contain the other player and expand my own bases. In-other-words, with SC2's new "high ground advantage" system I now have more availible stratagies to choose from... attack or expand.
I think the main reason why Blizzard had the "high ground advantage" system that they had in SC1, was because of the lack of defensive structure options SC has compared to other RTS games such as Supreme Commander. So perhaps Blizzard is planning on including some teir 2 or 3 defensive structures in the coming expansions for SC2. Let's face it, teir 1 defensive structures can't to shit against teir 3 units.
|
On June 18 2010 21:45 kajeus wrote:
It's not like if you played BW you think every single thing about BW was absolutely perfect. That game had some serious flaws.
i agree that the game had flaws, and one could argue all day about how scouts should have perhaps been buffed a bit and so forth but i'm 100 percent certain that the highground mechanic that bw had, even if it was flawed and a bit random at times, did a whole lot more good to the game than bad. The idea is to now improve on it and implement it in the game, not to scrap it completely because some feel its too random.
I prefer the range suggestion proposed a couple of posts back. That makes tons of sense and would be a fun mechanic.
this is more of the stuff we need on this thread. Opinions on how it should be implemented.
Nobody is saying "a highground mechanic is unnecessary and horrible."
Sorry for not taking exact quotes from previous posts but cmon, i think u know what i was trying to say. You yourself called the bw mechanic stupid several times. It might not have been perfect, but it certainly wasn't stupid. This hit and miss mechanic added a whole lot more to the game than people give it credit for.
|
On June 18 2010 21:56 Xlancer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2010 20:39 lololol wrote:
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. I wasn't basing my reasoning solely on "realism" because SC2 is, in fact, a game, as you also pointed out,(perhaps I shouldn't of even used real world examples in my post) but also on the fact that a it's just plain absurd for a game to give elevated units 50% dodge(making it suicide to attack). That just promotes stalemates for no reason--forcing players to just contain the other player while expanding their own bases rather than attack. Even though the current system still promotes stalemates for no reason(how can their stalker be shooting at my stalker if mine can't shoot back at theirs?) Now I at least have the ability to break the stalemate with an observer spotting the high ground for me instead of just being forced to contain the other player and expand my own bases. In-other-words, with SC2's new "high ground advantage" system I now have more availible stratagies to choose from... attack or expand. I think the main reason why Blizzard had the "high ground advantage" system that they had in SC1, was because of the lack of defensive structure options SC has compared to other RTS games such as Supreme Commander. So perhaps Blizzard is planning on including some teir 2 or 3 defensive structures in the coming expansions for SC2. Let's face it, teir 1 defensive structures can't to shit against teir 3 units.
I have to admit this is an intriguing possibility and begs the question what is Blizzard's reasoning for introducing the vision high ground system? As a side note tactical stalemates aren't necessarily bad for game play and often force the game to the next "stage" i.e. both players split the map or one player tech switches or goes for a drop.
EDIT: just for emphasis, tier 2 or tier 3 defensive structures?? very interesting...maybe a topic for another thread
|
Range alterations can't work, except if applied to just a few specific units. The problem is that by altering range for everyone, you deeply alter the relationship between units, and SC2 has way too many units to consider all possible interactions.
If applied to just a few units, though, it becomes an unit feature, Then it could work.
Also, even if in BW the units actually missed their targets, it was very hard to see it when bigger troops fought each other. Combine this with SC2's clumping and graphics, and clarity would be even worse.
Blizzard also doesn't seem to like this old system (by this, I mean a damage reduction one, be it through missed shots, slower speed, damage reduction, etc...), so it won't come back. No point in arguing about it, they just want the consistency that if unit X is shot by unit Y Z times, with no heal inbetween, then unit X is dead. Myself, I think that this is a preference thing, as it removes a bit of depth from the game, but allows for better fine-tuning of it, and I have no objections with it.
Now, the problem with the current High-Ground system in SC2 is that from the midgame onwards, it disappears almost completely. The only thing it does is force somewhat the usage of flying units/colossi, and a little bit of micro. But since SC2 has Vikings, Corruptors, Observers, and Watch Towers, this is hardly a great deal.
What I'd like to see is some kind of aerial LoS blocker, maybe some kind of cloud doodad that would block the vision from outside, and reduce vision significantly from inside (and maybe even do some DoT after some cooldown period inside it), all this just for aerial units, of course.
This would make it possible for map makers to create spots where high ground is important all game long.
in a nutshell:
- The old HG system won't come back because it alters damage, and they want damage to be consistent.
- This system has its issues, but they can be used as a feature with good map design.
- We're still missing tools for creating trully great maps. Frankly, the only one that seems really good is Metalopolis, and even this one has its issues. LT works but is a bit meh too. This system requires some way to remove aerial vision mid-late game for HG advantage to have any meaning beyond the eraly game.
|
Calgary25996 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
