Shooting without being revealed

no the immortals they got instant hits

 

But their range suck.

 

as demonstrated by the colossus, how higher the more range

 

Colossus will be extremely powerful placed on cliffs near narrow passage ways. Stalkers will be fun, have them blink down to the enemy, deal damage in the chaos, and blink back up the cliff brfore heavy damage is done.

 

I guess players will think twice before building near cliffs unless they want a group of unseen cannons lay waste on their bases.

Also, I think detecting units like the Observer should reveal where the siege tank is firing from incase one is shooting nearby.

 

Detectors allow you to see cloaked units within thier line of site. An observer can't detect a tank until it has the tank in its line of site. Then they are visible becuase they are seen, not the detection.

 

I think this idea is pretty neat. Just take this idea and throw away the low ground having a chance to miss idea.

 

Yeah, random things don't belong in SC(2).

 

I don't see whats wrong with the lower ground having the chance to miss, many other war games do the same thing, or the higher ground unit gets an attack bonus.

 

I think its better if the units on the lower ground gets a 10% damage reduction, rather than them missing 10% of the time. It's a big difference. (although, I don't want either of em to be in SC2.)

 

I'd prefer the reduction, the popular ccomputer game Age of Empires did that. Units on top had a damage increase, and units on lower ground had a damage decrease.

 

In Age of Empires though that was because their ordinance was just arrows and big rocks. When you're dealing with exploding shells and beam weapons elevation isn't going to affect damage at all, and with bullets the difference is negligible.

 

I see your point, but in reality, its harder to fight someone with the high ground than when you are on the high ground, fireing at someone lower than you.

 

It's actually incredibly hard to fight someone who has the advantage of elevation.

It's much easier to shoot down a cliff than up one. In fact, it's darn near impossible to hit someone at a higher elevation than you are unless you're at an extreme distance.

The closer you are the larger the angle at which the hostile can remain unseen and therefore safe. It also increases his chances of hitting you the closer you get to that cliff.

 

This advantage is why chance-to-miss was implemented in SC1, but as Gasmaskguy said, chance-to-miss can be replaced with a global damage reduction. It is as if a huge number of shots were fired with chance-to-miss and then divided out by the same number to get the average damage. This will have the exact same result as simply doing the percent-based reduction.

 

I hate shooting up cliffs, when it comes to cliffs the game hates me I rarely get shots off, I once was held off by a single bunker, when using an entire group of goons, I got off maybe six shots during the whole wave, I was in a rage!!

 

That is why it should be a certain damage reduction instead, that way you can actually calculate the outcome.

 

this is good, gives us a new way to confuse the enemy. this will be hell with the thor! o and does it work with nuking someone?

 

Nah, the "nuclear launch detected" will undoubtedly pop up, no matter what.

 

yeah, without that it would be OP