We don't know yet how trees and other forms of cover will work in Starcraft 2. In starcraft BW trees and other sprite doodads give a 70% hitschance when shot at. The trees also break up enemy formations possibly reducing splashdamge done to the. This gives an advantage of melee over ranged ground and Ranged over Air. However this advange is upset. The pathing of the assaulting troops gets messed up there is less room to take up attacking positions and place to make contact with the enemy.
In BW the area with cover is only a little bigger then the inpassable area. So does cover outweigh the disadvantage of breaking up the formations. AFAIK is the reason we see so lttle doodad on battlefields. I think the room a coverdoodad takes up at its base should be a 1X1 area or make it completely passable to make it an actual tactical element rather then just an ornamentation.

Discuss
edit 70% hitchange not mischange. Poor formulaion

IdrA

United States11541 Posts

September 04 2007 19:00 GMT

in the early days trees and stuff got more tactical attention didnt they? i remember a post mentioning an early tournament finals, grrr vs someone, where grrr's opponent was careful to place tanks under trees during a push.

Boblion

France8043 Posts

September 04 2007 19:01 GMT

On September 05 2007 03:55 KaasZerg wrote:
In starcraft BW trees and other sprite doodads give a 70% misschance when shot at.

Discuss

OrlY ?????

LOL i didnt know it.

lololol

5198 Posts

September 04 2007 19:11 GMT

Cover is useless in SC, it's too small to matter, when you're dealing with large armies, which often move back and forth, e.t.c.
Terrain height differences are the useful "cover" and that's what SC2 expands upon.

fight_or_flight

United States3988 Posts

September 04 2007 19:19 GMT

On September 05 2007 04:11 lololol wrote:
Cover is useless in SC, it's too small to matter, when you're dealing with large armies, which often move back and forth, e.t.c.
Terrain height differences are the useful "cover" and that's what SC2 expands upon.

So you're saying the lesson is, make cover less of a gimmick in sc2? I like this thinking.

Liquid`Jinro

Sweden33719 Posts

September 04 2007 20:12 GMT

I always used trees in micro arena ;D And I think I've used them in real games, but most maps don't have trees.

Boblion

France8043 Posts

September 04 2007 20:16 GMT

Today i learned something, that's cool. I will try to use it in micro maps now

New Zealand6138 Posts

September 04 2007 20:17 GMT

I noticed an opponent of mine yesterday put a lurker under a tree. It's the only time I've ever seen someone actually use one for cover in a proper game.

AcrossFiveJulys

United States3612 Posts

September 04 2007 20:17 GMT

On September 05 2007 03:55 KaasZerg wrote:
In starcraft BW trees and other sprite doodads give a 70% misschance when shot at.

Discuss

Really? I thought it was a 30% miss chance, 70% hit chance. Same goes for up cliffs.

CharlieMurphy

United States22895 Posts

September 04 2007 20:46 GMT

#10

yea its 30% miss for cliff or doodad. Also its like .0001% chance to just miss in general without any cover at all (probably some programming glitch).

I use trees and cliffs a lot in melee and UMS...

KaasZerg

Netherlands927 Posts

September 04 2007 21:01 GMT

#11

On September 05 2007 05:46 CharlieMurphy wrote:
yea its 30% miss for cliff or doodad. Also its like .0001% chance to just miss in general without any cover at all (probably some programming glitch).

I use trees and cliffs a lot in melee and UMS...

Your right.

ImgGartok

United States216 Posts

September 04 2007 21:08 GMT

#12

Shouldn't a game like SC have no chance at all? Ie shouldn't cover just reduced damage taken by 25% or something. I always wondered why high ground vs low ground had chance involved in a game like SC.

minus_human

4784 Posts

September 04 2007 21:58 GMT

#13

How the fuck is this possible in a 3D game? "Behind the tree" is only behind the tree from the viewer's perspective. I'm really curious if such a thing (70% hitchance or w/e) is possible, and how much of a pain will it cost to implement?

Tiptup

United States133 Posts

September 04 2007 22:28 GMT

#14

If a unit has to shoot through a tree to hit another unit, that should count as cover. It's not difficult.

Klockan3

Sweden2866 Posts

September 04 2007 23:33 GMT

#15

On September 05 2007 06:58 minus_human wrote:
How the fuck is this possible in a 3D game? "Behind the tree" is only behind the tree from the viewer's perspective. I'm really curious if such a thing (70% hitchance or w/e) is possible, and how much of a pain will it cost to implement?

Look at company of heroes, they did a pretty advanced coversystem with just a lot of algorithms. Many people are tricked and think the shots have real traveling paths but in reality its just a % to hit and if it rolls a hit the shot always hits even if it have to go through a wall, or cannon shots homing unto infantry etc.

So its not hard at all with modern game engines, eventhough it would just make melee units stronger in forests since the ranged units would just have the same miss out as others have in on them.

sushiman

Sweden2691 Posts

September 05 2007 00:28 GMT

#16

I've frequently used trees and such as covers, but it was more common back in the days when more maps were played and there still were doodads on the map. Nowadays the maps just doesn't have them where it matters, probably because of the mentioned pathing. But personally I think it gives good tactical possibilities, and it's much more fun to outplay your opponent by using witty manouvres like hiding and such rather than just plain flanking.
I hope they have good covers in SC2, and that map makers utilize them.

Jyvblamo

Canada13788 Posts

September 05 2007 00:30 GMT

#17

On September 05 2007 08:33 Klockan3 wrote:

Show nested quote +

What if units that fired projectiles in a parabolic arc didn't get a penalty for being behind cover? Actually, the only unit that I can think of that does this is the Siege Tank. Well, you could also make it so the unit that is close to the 'cover' does not receive a %hit penalty.

Xeofreestyler

Belgium6768 Posts

September 05 2007 20:56 GMT

#18

I actually remember pusan hiding a probe behind a tree on R-point

oshibori_probe

United States2933 Posts

September 06 2007 00:14 GMT

#19

<3 the old snipers ums w/ lotsa trees

Cambium

United States16368 Posts

September 06 2007 00:20 GMT

#20

Reminds me of TMA, when Trees are really useful. I don't think they matter that much in a real game. Unless the pro-map team starts to make maps full of trees (sounds like an interesting idea actually)...

And as someone already mentioned, SC2 is 3D, hard to implement a tree concept into a 3D game.

XCetron

5226 Posts

September 06 2007 00:23 GMT

#21

On September 06 2007 09:20 Cambium wrote:
Reminds me of TMA, when Trees are really useful. I don't think they matter that much in a real game. Unless the pro-map team starts to make maps full of trees (sounds like an interesting idea actually)...

And as someone already mentioned, SC2 is 3D, hard to implement a tree concept into a 3D game.

can just make it (if A unit attacks B unit and X is between them, increase chances of missing) where X is a doodad.

I'm not a programmer so that might be hard, idk.

Ziel

Malaysia241 Posts

September 06 2007 03:49 GMT

#22

Ranged ground units' missiles shouldn't be able to go over buildings (or certain big buildings like CC) to hit units on the other side of the building. Instead the building takes damage. This is probably more easier to impliment since doodad cover is quite situational. But if this is implimented then it'll be very useful in base skirmishes. Hide your SCVs behind the CC fortress so ranged enemy units gotta move around the CC to attack. Makes more more micro perhaps? Plus maybe it'll encourage more strategic base placements.

Cambium

United States16368 Posts

September 06 2007 04:00 GMT

#23

On September 06 2007 09:23 XCetron wrote:

Show nested quote +

can just make it (if A unit attacks B unit and X is between them, increase chances of missing) where X is a doodad.

I'm not a programmer so that might be hard, idk.

Yea that makes sense... I was just thinking about how the "height" element could be incorporated..

A lot of physics probably