|
On July 03 2015 19:27 Plexa wrote: The SC2 armor system is superior to that of BW/War 3. There are more variables and tags that can be added to each unit and each attack to allow for the kinds of balancing that you want.
The main goal of this is to split the Armor type into Medium and Heavy. I think both a % system and a + system have pros and cons. Just trying to point out that we can create more diverse play by splitting armored into 2 Medium and heavy to prevent across the board nerfs to all armored units like is currently
|
On July 03 2015 19:29 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 19:25 Valon wrote:On July 03 2015 19:14 cSc.Dav1oN wrote: Forget, this system won't be accepted since StarCraft and WarCraft got completly diffrerent damage/armor systems, in fact what u've proposed worked in WarCraft3.
In Starcraft u got marine with 7 attack vs 2 armor zealot = as a result 5 damage/hit In Warcraft u had grunt with 17-21 normal attack that was hitting crypt fiend with 1 medium armor (normal attack deals 175% to medium armor) so u had to count amror/damage types (and any single unit of armor gave damage reduction exponentionally 1 armor - 15% reduction 10 armor - 60% reduction, 20 armor - 70% reduction) and cut off damage/armor points
So it became like (17 - 21 * 175%) - 15% (1 armor) = the actual damage that current unit deals to current target with a single hit.
Why bothering with such calculation and changes? Starcraft 2 damage/armor system in simple and perfect, as well as easy to calculate in any time This isn't the end idea to end all ideas nor is it perfect. The intent it to allow more wiggle room in unit interactions and have a middle ground instead of either neutral or good. As for your Forget this system, I won't. I will put ideas out there to spark discussion. It probably won't change anything and will never be implemented in any form. But you don't know if you don't try and now is the time to try. So I will. I still kinda don't get why u are trying to invent a wheel that already been inveted literally decade ago. It is up to ofc, u can present anything u want basicly, but making things harder does not mean it will be better eventually. Simple is perfect. It's not making things harder, you missed the entire point of the post that I kept stressing again and again. And that was splitting armored into Medium and heavy it can be used in the bonus system (+6 to medium 12 vs heavy) that is the point that I stressed multiple times but went over your head.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
The current system supports what you're proposing though... e.g. declaring that a marauder does 10 + 10 if armored and -5 if light (which isn't in the status quo, but could be supported by the current system). If you view max damage as 20, then normal is 50% and light is 25%. It also avoids the convoluted armor type system you propose, which isn't at all clear. e.g. the status quo has all things clearly laid out, your system would say "20 damage" without any idea of why it does only 5 vs light.
|
What I would like to see in the current system are positional damage modifiers. For example, if you are on high ground you take less damage or dish out more damage.
|
Valon your proposal could work for another RTS, but it doesn't quite fit the design of SC2.
Bliz wants to make things intuitive and easy to understand. Your proposal is convoluted and has a steep learning curve. While your system has merits (granular attack/armor design for finer balancing) it requires the players to make too many considerations.
Blizzard wants SC2 to be easy to pick up, but difficult to learn. With your system it would be difficult to pick up and learn.
And as others have said, Bliz already does something similar to what you propose, but they do it with flat numbers, not percentages. Flat numbers are easier to grasp, and their method allows them to do tweaks for balance just as easily.
Your idea just doesn't fit into SC2 design.
|
On July 03 2015 19:11 Valon wrote: The current system has less freedom. If you want to decrease a marauders effectiveness vs an ultra you also have to decrease it's effectiveness vs stalkers because they are both ultras.
There are already two different ways you can do this. Ultras are massive so it could be weaker against massive targets, and Stalkers have shields so it could have a +bonus to shields.
|
On July 07 2015 07:07 Loccstana wrote: What I would like to see in the current system are positional damage modifiers. For example, if you are on high ground you take less damage or dish out more damage. Then play a mod! There is both Starcraft Improved and SC2 CustomCraft that does this.
|
A (overly complicated) solution in search of a problem.
|
The example is kinda bad. If you nerf a unit because it's too good against 2 core units, but find that you're still disappointed that it doesn't counter some super late game unit anymore, it's probably a design problem more than just numbers. In the end, I'm not sure turning rock-paper-scissors into rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock makes it a better game. Probably easier to balance, yeah...
I mean, units could have more specific armor types, let's say for example "Ultra armor", "Roach armor" or "Ling armor". And then the Marauder would have a more specific attack type "Marauder attack". Then you would just have to balance the resulting 50x50 damage-armor matrix.
|
On July 03 2015 08:38 Valon wrote: Current attacks are described as X+Y vs Z usually Armored, light or massive. As pointed out it is very hard to keep a unit affective against an ultralisk if it is way too powerful vs the roach.
not sure if someone brought this up already, but
in the current system you make the unit do bonus damage to massive and then you have something powerful against the Ultralisk independent of how well it can do against a Roach.
your proposal is carefully thought out.. you deserve credit for that. however, i prefer the current system... and other posters have outlined how it can accomodate specific unit interactions.
thanks for the interesting read.
|
|
|
|