|
On January 18 2014 22:37 NukeD wrote:
Stop with the retarded highground misschance argument already. It is so retarded just stop.
The intricacies of popularity.
You guys are chatting about stuff that isn't really gonna get changed. Kabel and others know their shit (I'm sorry I have no clue who develops the core anymore, I haven't been around for the most part of the process) and they will work towards making SB a better game. Focus on giving suggestions, not discussing pros and cons of core mechanics everyone already got used to.
...actually, I'm probably wasting time here.
|
On January 18 2014 22:21 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 22:04 thezanursic wrote:On January 18 2014 20:49 CutTheEnemy wrote:
easiest way to explain how % miss chance can be a problem is to imagine a metagame that could arise in which a toss makes a certain number of gates and attacks up a ramp in an all-in where the result is very very close and whether 1/4 shots miss or 3/4 shots miss determines whether the all-in works or not.
Unlikely to be a big problem though. Just saying: the most volatile games in RNG terms will be the all-ins. Except that during an all-in a lot of shoots are fired so it all averages out. The larger the number of goons the more predictable the outcome. If you have 8 dragoons and count on them missing on the upper end of the average, you should reliably be able to predict the results with 99% certainty. Also if you just move up the ramp and hope for the best you are pretty much a retard. For instance in BW the miss chance was 48% (and actually 0.45% or 1/256 on even ground) so a smart player would count on the goons killing the tank in slightly more shoots than usual, if it took a lot of RNG to be cost-efficient they just didn't do it. Soo what you are talking about literally only makes a difference in 1% of games. How can you know how many games this will impact when Sbow has no metagame? You assume that there will be as few all in/pressure builds as in BW, but this is not BW. Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 21:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 18 2014 21:39 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On January 18 2014 21:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I don't even understand why you would argue about it, it will NEVER make any real difference.
You just won't get the situation in which you have 10 marines and your overall dps is reduced 70%, it won't happen How you know it? Cause it is extremely unlikely, you would probably have to play 1 billion games to have this situation (probably even more) Same goes here. We just don't know. By pure stats, it will happen once in every 7 engagements. That might mean multiple times per game. By applicability to games, depends on the meta. If Bio becomes viable in Sbow, and Marine pressure builds are viable, then analogous situations will crop up often. If Bio pressure is not viable, then analogous situations may not crop up. The only reason I brought up that example was because somebody asked me for a clear-cut example where miss chance impacted some units differently than others. I gave the first one I could think up without playing the game. You want a better example? Casters. High Templar, Ghosts, and Defilers on low ground aren't affected by high ground whatsoever. Miss chance disadvantages all "standard" units and advantages casters by not giving them any drawbacks whatsoever. Under miss chance, a Terran army that does not rely on casters will have a tougher time assaulting a Protoss base on high ground relative to a Protoss with Storms assaulting a Terran base on high ground, than they would if there was no miss chance. There, it only took until 5 AM, but I finally disproved the idea that miss chance is somehow fair to all ground units, and is therefore superior to other methods of defender's advantage, which are not equally fair. Right? Right???
I'm talking about statistics not the metagame.
|
On January 18 2014 23:02 makmeatt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 22:37 NukeD wrote:
Stop with the retarded highground misschance argument already. It is so retarded just stop. The intricacies of popularity. You guys are chatting about stuff that isn't really gonna get changed. Kabel and others know their shit (I'm sorry I have no clue who develops the core anymore, I haven't been around for the most part of the process) and they will work towards making SB a better game. Focus on giving suggestions, not discussing pros and cons of core mechanics everyone already got used to. ...actually, I'm probably wasting time here.
I hope that you're wrong, because if they're as set on the game's design as you think they are, then Sbow might end up inadvertently making Blizzard's point for Blizz - that a game that players are familiar with is better than a better designed game that players have to relearn. And the fact that a bunch of people are turning to Sbow seems to prove that sometimes it's worth relearning if the end product is superior.
On January 18 2014 23:03 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 22:21 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 18 2014 22:04 thezanursic wrote:On January 18 2014 20:49 CutTheEnemy wrote:
easiest way to explain how % miss chance can be a problem is to imagine a metagame that could arise in which a toss makes a certain number of gates and attacks up a ramp in an all-in where the result is very very close and whether 1/4 shots miss or 3/4 shots miss determines whether the all-in works or not.
Unlikely to be a big problem though. Just saying: the most volatile games in RNG terms will be the all-ins. Except that during an all-in a lot of shoots are fired so it all averages out. The larger the number of goons the more predictable the outcome. If you have 8 dragoons and count on them missing on the upper end of the average, you should reliably be able to predict the results with 99% certainty. Also if you just move up the ramp and hope for the best you are pretty much a retard. For instance in BW the miss chance was 48% (and actually 0.45% or 1/256 on even ground) so a smart player would count on the goons killing the tank in slightly more shoots than usual, if it took a lot of RNG to be cost-efficient they just didn't do it. Soo what you are talking about literally only makes a difference in 1% of games. How can you know how many games this will impact when Sbow has no metagame? You assume that there will be as few all in/pressure builds as in BW, but this is not BW. On January 18 2014 21:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 18 2014 21:39 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On January 18 2014 21:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I don't even understand why you would argue about it, it will NEVER make any real difference.
You just won't get the situation in which you have 10 marines and your overall dps is reduced 70%, it won't happen How you know it? Cause it is extremely unlikely, you would probably have to play 1 billion games to have this situation (probably even more) Same goes here. We just don't know. By pure stats, it will happen once in every 7 engagements. That might mean multiple times per game. By applicability to games, depends on the meta. If Bio becomes viable in Sbow, and Marine pressure builds are viable, then analogous situations will crop up often. If Bio pressure is not viable, then analogous situations may not crop up. The only reason I brought up that example was because somebody asked me for a clear-cut example where miss chance impacted some units differently than others. I gave the first one I could think up without playing the game. You want a better example? Casters. High Templar, Ghosts, and Defilers on low ground aren't affected by high ground whatsoever. Miss chance disadvantages all "standard" units and advantages casters by not giving them any drawbacks whatsoever. Under miss chance, a Terran army that does not rely on casters will have a tougher time assaulting a Protoss base on high ground relative to a Protoss with Storms assaulting a Terran base on high ground, than they would if there was no miss chance. There, it only took until 5 AM, but I finally disproved the idea that miss chance is somehow fair to all ground units, and is therefore superior to other methods of defender's advantage, which are not equally fair. Right? Right??? I'm talking about statistics not the metagame.
My apologies, I didn't see where at the top you said "count on them missing on the upper end of the average." Yes, in practice conservative estimates are a great way to get fairly reliable results (and when they're not reliable, they're far more likely to swing the game in your favor than not).
|
On January 18 2014 13:03 Kabel wrote:
- fixed Siege Tanks (Siege Mode) not being able to target fire
This was actually huge, glad to see it fixed
|
On January 18 2014 18:37 avilo wrote:
Vulture build time nerfed after less than a week of lots of people playing this...not a good sign lol.
Actually overcharge was bugged and didn't last for the duration it was supposed to. It is now fixed, and thus if you overcharge your factory, Vulture production will be roughly similar as prepatch.
The changes we have made so far, were changes that we probably would have made regardless of the popularity of Starbow. We are aware that players haven't figured out optimal builds yet, and thus for the time being we are very cautious about balancing the game based on the current meta.
I think for the time being the most complaints we get are related to early game tvz bio w/ terran being a bit too weak. We will in the next patch make small adjustments to this matchup which we think will improve the microability of the terran in early game without having a huge impact on balance.
If the issue remains over a longer period, we will consider bigger changes.
|
Why don´t you guys use a entropy based system instead of pseudo random?
|
On January 18 2014 23:41 Nachtwind wrote:
Why don´t you guys use a entropy based system instead of pseudo random?
English?
|
On miss chance: imagine playing pokemon without miss chance, it would be so much more boring. You would be able to forsee every outcome easily and plan far ahead. Miss chance forces you to continuously adapt.
|
|
|
On January 18 2014 23:48 Xiphias wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 23:41 Nachtwind wrote:
Why don´t you guys use a entropy based system instead of pseudo random? English?
Maybe he means what blizzard uses for droprates in WoW? If you haven't looted an item in a while the system gives you an increased drop chance. For highground miss chance it would mean that if you miss once, that next shot you get a 60% chance to hit, and if you miss again it becomes 70% etc. so that there is a lot less variance.
|
Sounds like a lot of editor work 
But interesting idea. Better than dmg reduction.
|
On January 19 2014 00:01 Xiphias wrote:Sounds like a lot of editor work But interesting idea. Better than dmg reduction.
Have you considered damage addition?
Seriously, it's not the same thing as damage reduction. Damage addition gives the defender a boost against spellcasters as well as "regular" units, while miss chance and damage reduction do absolutely nothing against spellcasters whatsoever.
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0cOY4mg.jpg?1)
Blizzard, make it happen!  Would be awesome support from them, but somehow I don't get my hopes too high on this one.
|
What is that? Photoshop?
Blizzard would never support something like that though. They have no reason to and even if Starbow is an excellent mod, I would be more than hesitant in their shoes to support actual matchmaking outside the arcade.
|
On January 18 2014 22:21 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 22:04 thezanursic wrote:On January 18 2014 20:49 CutTheEnemy wrote:
easiest way to explain how % miss chance can be a problem is to imagine a metagame that could arise in which a toss makes a certain number of gates and attacks up a ramp in an all-in where the result is very very close and whether 1/4 shots miss or 3/4 shots miss determines whether the all-in works or not.
Unlikely to be a big problem though. Just saying: the most volatile games in RNG terms will be the all-ins. Except that during an all-in a lot of shoots are fired so it all averages out. The larger the number of goons the more predictable the outcome. If you have 8 dragoons and count on them missing on the upper end of the average, you should reliably be able to predict the results with 99% certainty. Also if you just move up the ramp and hope for the best you are pretty much a retard. For instance in BW the miss chance was 48% (and actually 0.45% or 1/256 on even ground) so a smart player would count on the goons killing the tank in slightly more shoots than usual, if it took a lot of RNG to be cost-efficient they just didn't do it. Soo what you are talking about literally only makes a difference in 1% of games. How can you know how many games this will impact when Sbow has no metagame? You assume that there will be as few all in/pressure builds as in BW, but this is not BW. Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 21:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 18 2014 21:39 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On January 18 2014 21:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I don't even understand why you would argue about it, it will NEVER make any real difference.
You just won't get the situation in which you have 10 marines and your overall dps is reduced 70%, it won't happen How you know it? Cause it is extremely unlikely, you would probably have to play 1 billion games to have this situation (probably even more) Same goes here. We just don't know. By pure stats, it will happen once in every 7 engagements. That might mean multiple times per game. By applicability to games, depends on the meta. If Bio becomes viable in Sbow, and Marine pressure builds are viable, then analogous situations will crop up often. If Bio pressure is not viable, then analogous situations may not crop up. The only reason I brought up that example was because somebody asked me for a clear-cut example where miss chance impacted some units differently than others. I gave the first one I could think up without playing the game. You want a better example? Casters. High Templar, Ghosts, and Defilers on low ground aren't affected by high ground whatsoever. Miss chance disadvantages all "standard" units and advantages casters by not giving them any drawbacks whatsoever. Under miss chance, a Terran army that does not rely on casters will have a tougher time assaulting a Protoss base on high ground relative to a Protoss with Storms assaulting a Terran base on high ground, than they would if there was no miss chance. There, it only took until 5 AM, but I finally disproved the idea that miss chance is somehow fair to all ground units, and is therefore superior to other methods of defender's advantage, which are not equally fair. Right? Right???
Uhm, I've yet to see any example with numbers that explains why miss chance is broken.
Marines vs siege tanks or Marauders vs siege tanks dynamics are very different by nature and are not changed by high ground mechanics. The only thing that is true, is that it adds a small degree of uncertainty, which further helps defender's advantage.
Also, what you fail to see is that playing starcraft is full of gambles. For example: based on the scouting info i received, i suspect the odds that the terran player will do an aggressive opener is relatively small, so i will take a greedy expo. You can almost never be 100% sure that he isn't giving you wrong intel or hiding something.
Gambling and gaming are much more related than you think. Good players have good mechanics, but the best also make good judgement calls.
You will never be able to filter out all the randomness in a game, because then the game becomes predictable and stale.
|
|
|
HOnestly we just need to look at BIo in TvZ with the Upgrades 2-2 you need 100% tech I think thats the major problem I can understand 3-3 but 2-2 you need Fusion core seems a bit much... if one of you guys could explain as to why for that I would be much obliged to accept any explanation
I was a semi good player in BW and I played SK Terran almost every game in tvz and was my best M/U I think the only problem now is the Upgrades not really flowing with a good Bio build and makes you TEch harder for 2-2 which is something you really can't do with bio otherwise you fall massively behind... but thats just my Opinion <3 STill love the mod to death though
|
On January 19 2014 00:11 nukkuj wrote:Blizzard, make it happen! Would be awesome support from them, but somehow I don't get my hopes too high on this one.
Haha that would be really cool. but unfortunately i think they will just say no and then thats that.
I would just like to say something about having that ladder option.
I really like the social thing when you ask in chat chnnel for an opponent and the "pre-talk" before.
Just gives you another feeling than just klick on play and it gives you an opponent.
|
On January 19 2014 00:14 SolidSMD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2014 22:21 pure.Wasted wrote:On January 18 2014 22:04 thezanursic wrote:On January 18 2014 20:49 CutTheEnemy wrote:
easiest way to explain how % miss chance can be a problem is to imagine a metagame that could arise in which a toss makes a certain number of gates and attacks up a ramp in an all-in where the result is very very close and whether 1/4 shots miss or 3/4 shots miss determines whether the all-in works or not.
Unlikely to be a big problem though. Just saying: the most volatile games in RNG terms will be the all-ins. Except that during an all-in a lot of shoots are fired so it all averages out. The larger the number of goons the more predictable the outcome. If you have 8 dragoons and count on them missing on the upper end of the average, you should reliably be able to predict the results with 99% certainty. Also if you just move up the ramp and hope for the best you are pretty much a retard. For instance in BW the miss chance was 48% (and actually 0.45% or 1/256 on even ground) so a smart player would count on the goons killing the tank in slightly more shoots than usual, if it took a lot of RNG to be cost-efficient they just didn't do it. Soo what you are talking about literally only makes a difference in 1% of games. How can you know how many games this will impact when Sbow has no metagame? You assume that there will be as few all in/pressure builds as in BW, but this is not BW. On January 18 2014 21:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 18 2014 21:39 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On January 18 2014 21:37 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I don't even understand why you would argue about it, it will NEVER make any real difference.
You just won't get the situation in which you have 10 marines and your overall dps is reduced 70%, it won't happen How you know it? Cause it is extremely unlikely, you would probably have to play 1 billion games to have this situation (probably even more) Same goes here. We just don't know. By pure stats, it will happen once in every 7 engagements. That might mean multiple times per game. By applicability to games, depends on the meta. If Bio becomes viable in Sbow, and Marine pressure builds are viable, then analogous situations will crop up often. If Bio pressure is not viable, then analogous situations may not crop up. The only reason I brought up that example was because somebody asked me for a clear-cut example where miss chance impacted some units differently than others. I gave the first one I could think up without playing the game. You want a better example? Casters. High Templar, Ghosts, and Defilers on low ground aren't affected by high ground whatsoever. Miss chance disadvantages all "standard" units and advantages casters by not giving them any drawbacks whatsoever. Under miss chance, a Terran army that does not rely on casters will have a tougher time assaulting a Protoss base on high ground relative to a Protoss with Storms assaulting a Terran base on high ground, than they would if there was no miss chance. There, it only took until 5 AM, but I finally disproved the idea that miss chance is somehow fair to all ground units, and is therefore superior to other methods of defender's advantage, which are not equally fair. Right? Right??? Uhm, I've yet to see any example with numbers that explains why miss chance is broken. Marines vs siege tanks or Marauders vs siege tanks dynamics are very different by nature and are not changed by high ground mechanics. The only thing that is true, is that it adds a small degree of uncertainty, which further helps defender's advantage.
What kind of numbers am I supposed to give you from a half-updated wiki and a game I can't play? We're talking about game design, those numbers can change day to day.
A spellcaster is not affected by miss chance. Or, put another way, the amount of effect miss chance has on a spellcaster is 0. There, it's broken! And for anyone joining the discussion late, "broken" doesn't mean it doesn't work in any way whatsoever, it simply means that it's not a be-all-end-all solution that provides a perfectly equal advantage to all units and all races. Depending on the meta of different MUs, spellcasters not being affected by defender's advantage might significantly help a race's offense, or have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Miss chance might still end up being the best of a bunch of mediocre options, but I really think it should be the last resort.
Also, what you fail to see is that playing starcraft is full of gambles. For example: based on the scouting info i received, i suspect the odds that the terran player will do an aggressive opener is relatively small, so i will take a greedy expo. You can almost never be 100% sure that he isn't giving you wrong intel or hiding something.
Gambling and gaming are much more related than you think. Good players have good mechanics, but the best also make good judgement calls.
You will never be able to filter out all the randomness in a game, because then the game becomes predictable and stale.
Nobody wants to filter out all the unpredictability out of games. That's silly and impossible. But there's no point in deliberately adding more randomness. The game will naturally provide it through examples like what you described with judgment calls.
Are you familiar with WC3? Would you say that WC3's randomness helped it as a competitive game? I think most people would probably say no, it was often a shitty competitive game where getting the wrong loot drop often meant GG 3 minutes into the game. Miss chance isn't approaching that level of stupidity, but as a general policy, is it not better to be safe rather than sorry? Let the players bring the uncertainty element.
That's the last I'll press the issue. The devs have more than enough feedback to come to a decision, I imagine.
|
Why do we use 50% miss chance for high ground
Short answer? It works extremely well.
We have thought about many different alternatives. They are all problematic and simply not as clean, ironic as that it (50% being an rng element).
Reduction of vision don't help players trying to bust up a ramp.
Nor does reduction of range.
Damage reduction interacts poorly with burst damage vs constant damage as well as armor mitigation and lower damage units vs high damage units.
Every other attack=miss is downright gamey.
So essentially, the current highground mechanic works, and it works very well in practice.
Its not like we do it because BW did it, it was our thing to fallback on if we couldn't find a better designed mechanic.
You are free to sugguest new ideas for high ground, and we will listen to them.
Damage Size's mitigation instead of Bonus????? Why this crazy damage system that is harder to understand???!
This actually has to do with how armor and shields work in our game. Starbow is built to start from the basic BW balance, including things like build times, and core unit interaction. Zealots vs Hydralisks, that sort of thing.
Our damage system enables the use of subtracting armor first, then applying the size modifier. Take hydra for instance. 10-1 for armor= 9 damage. SHooting a light unit? = 4.5 damage. The armor point is cut in half, so upgrades are less influential.
In the sc2 bonus system we would have 5 damage - 1 armor = 4 damage. A quick +1 armor on zealots would make hydras feel useless vs zealots.
A fundamental difference in BW is that upgrade timings play a softer role, and promotes softer counters. That hydralisk is already being hard countered by the zealots size, why make thing even worse? Or make vultures utterly useless vs an upgraded armor dragoon?
Additionally, I built the full damage vs shield system into the damage size system as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
