EPT[D] High Ground & Positional Advantages
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
| ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
| ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On April 18 2012 04:44 Aunvilgod wrote: Is there already a (recent) remake of match point? It looks damn sexy, I really want to copy it. There is. Day[9] did a daily on SC2 Match Point quite some time ago I believe. | ||
|
Ragoo
Germany2773 Posts
On April 18 2012 04:13 Barrin wrote: [list][*]there is really nothing that can replace what a strong high ground mechanic brings to the table. This for me is the most important point. While chokes are nice and give you positional advantages, they are the same in BW and SC2 regardless of highground advantage. So while using chokes more and better is indeed also important, there really isn't anything that replaces the highground advantage. Just look at Match Point, those highground pods are quite open yet give an advantage, which obviously isn't the same as using chokes. Really sucks that Blizzard felt the need to change this. I never played BW so when I started playing DotA 2 recently I really felt how much a real highground advantage means and I can only imagine how many possibilites it would give us mapmakers for better and more interesting layouts, and how much more positional and interesting the game could be. | ||
|
Aunvilgod
2653 Posts
Thanks for the great post. I got like 3 new ideas off this. | ||
|
Phried
Canada147 Posts
On April 18 2012 05:47 Ragoo wrote: This for me is the most important point. While chokes are nice and give you positional advantages, they are the same in BW and SC2 regardless of highground advantage. So while using chokes more and better is indeed also important, there really isn't anything that replaces the highground advantage. Just look at Match Point, those highground pods are quite open yet give an advantage, which obviously isn't the same as using chokes. Really sucks that Blizzard felt the need to change this. I never played BW so when I started playing DotA 2 recently I really felt how much a real highground advantage means and I can only imagine how many possibilites it would give us mapmakers for better and more interesting layouts, and how much more positional and interesting the game could be. I'm sure you could replicate the effect with triggers in the editor. Maybe we could do a similar experiment to FRB? | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
As for the 33% cover on high ground, its definitely replicable with triggers and/or the data editor, but ideally we would keep the maps "melee"... | ||
|
Phried
Canada147 Posts
On April 18 2012 06:50 TheFish7 wrote: ideally we would keep the maps "melee"... Probably impossible. Originally I was thinking upgrade modification but at the moment I'm messing around with trying to reduce attack range when attacking up as per ArcticRaven's suggestion. I'm not an expert with triggers so if someone else wants to take a crack at it, please do. I'm having trouble  | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I think the good pathing of SC2, which allows you to get through chokes and such, combined with a lack of high ground advantage, can make it really hard to defend multiple points in SC2. I'm torn as to whether or not to have a high ground advantage, but it's not up to me so I fortunately don't have to form an opinion. High ground advantage is good for making areas stronger but it's limited in the way that, physically, high grounds work. It's in layers, and you can't make Escher style terrain in a map. If there was a way to add the positioning of certain areas being at an advantage which isn't tied to terrain height, I think that would be ideal, although potentially a bit complicated or difficult to understand. Creep is a good example, but it's not very strong. Choke Points: These do need to be used more. One thing I was thinking about was creating stronger contrast between the tightest chokes and the openest areas in maps. Entombed valley is the best example of this right now, and it also makes for (imo,) most of the best games in the GSL. It's got some flaws but the basic idea is there. People complain about too small of chokes for whatever reason, saying that tanks will be imba, etc. This has been the case whenever I've really tried anything like that (though I can't say I did a great job at it.) I think one issue is that a chokepoint can at least appear to be good for certain army compositions, rather than being good for the player whose units are in a specific place (that is, the defender.) PvP will turn into 4gate vs 4gate without a ramp no matter how small you make the main choke, won't it? It's difficult to use chokes in a way that helps one player over the other, based on position rather than army composition. Maybe this is a misconception, or maybe it's a side effect of SC2's pathing. As you said about high grounds on Korhal Compound, it might not be something which inherently gives the defender an advantage. It could give them an incentive to control a point so the attacker can't abuse it. This is kinda what I was headed toward when I made (2) On Rainy Days although my understanding of things was considerably worse then. I don't think it plays out well on that map, but it might work in some cases. A Zerg player, for instance, might want to control the space beyond the choke point, so a Terran can't set up tanks there in a place where the Zerg would have to funnel units through the choke in order to attack the tanks. However, this isn't a purely good thing for the Zerg to do because it makes it harder to pull back through the chokes to the main or natural or whatever to defend another attack, maybe a drop. This makes it a risk-vs-reward scenario, rather than a "try as hard as you can to control this space which it's always good to control scenario" putting the focus on decision making rather than execution, which is a general trend when moving from BW to SC2. Then again, going through a choke doesn't slow down an army that much when it comes to getting to another point (unless the army is big enough,) but it does make it diffucult to get all your units attacking, and so it might always be a good decision to move your army out there. Of course this example is more for a choke which isn't all that forward. The forward chokes are good because they give you space to get your units in between the choke and the base you need to defend, or whatever, and you'll have time to do so after spotting some army on the move or whatever. Generally it's good for more passive or space controlling defense, as well. It definitely has a lot of potential mappers can explore. High Ground: Generally you have a lot of points here and I agree with them. For a while I've tried with different designs to make use of all the layers of terran. Generally making higher ground in more forward positions is good for positioning. I started a map this morning with this type of concept, although I need to work on it some more. High Ground is something I want to learn more about and come up with better ideas. Generally map makers have to get better overall. It felt there in the post-daybreak era that what was left to explore in map making hit a bit of a halt. FRB of course opened up to more bases and thus more creativity, but what was good to put in those maps was yet to be figured out. I think this is the first real advancement in that area, and should, for lack of a better term, raise the skill cap in mapping. Thanks for writing the thread, it helped me understand a bit more. I will use this knowledge to adjust some things about the map I'm working on. | ||
|
Sisyphos
Sweden13 Posts
In almost any map thread I visit there's something along the lines of: "There's high ground in location X, terran with tanks will be imba on this map" This really bugs me, it seems like no amount of high ground is acceptable to some people. I hope this thread will make map-makers less scared of high ground. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
"In SC1, there was a chance that units on the lowground would miss enemies on high ground. We removed this percentage since we do not like chance elements. The players ought to know exactly what advantage they have. And how to counter it." - Dustin Browder (source) Anyone actually capable of rational thought could have realized that the 50% miss chance could be easily replaced with 50% damage from low to high ground, achieving the same effect but with no randomness. | ||
|
monitor
United States2409 Posts
That being said, I will be releasing an update for Afterglow w/ 6m and 8m versions. I hope the changes will improve it ^^ | ||
|
DoDonPachi
Canada69 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Ix89h.png) The Blue and the Red square represent the location of a line of LOS blocker In the Case of the Red location, nothing change really. The marine cant attack the tank until he is on top of the ramp. In the Case of the Blue location, something really strange happen. It basicly create a Low-ground advantage. It is not drastic, but the tank can't attack the marine until the marine is on top of the ramp. A map using this feature will be a completly retarded map, with all the pvp 4gate problem and etc. When both LOS blocker are set, the result is the same as the Blue case. In conclusion, i believe that high ground in SC2 is just a big illusion. High ground can be replaced as a path blocker and a one way sight blocker and you will have the same result gameplay wise. I forgot to mention that air unit ( and the Collossus) completly nullify any high ground advantage that sc2 have. I want to high my sentence : An High ground is just a path blocker and a one way sight blocker ( it negate vision from low to high, but not from high to low). So the only positionnal feature in a map that the mapmaker can use is the choke. If we want a positionnal game, mapmaker should go crazy with any choke. What is regrettable in the game atm is that a single unit that have vision give it to everyone else. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
I do think the use of more losb is something we need, as well. The psychological side of high ground is funny. It so often feels like such a huge advantage while, if they have spotters it is no advantage at all. Of course the high ground still has some advantage even if it's only vision-related. There aren't always air units around and they can be killed, and scans are costly as well. I do support the high-ground having little to due with positional advantage, but we might need something (hopefully in addition to chokes,) that actually does give more positional advantage. -- I do support trying maps like 8m2g on the main and nat and 6m1hyg on further expansions. This was the original method to get rid of the 3-base deathballing issues, which were pretty problematic a year or so ago, and are still poor for gameplay even if they are racially balanced. | ||
|
DoDonPachi
Canada69 Posts
Also, i think it's stupid to have a low-ground advantage, it's counter intuitive | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
Now, I won't argue with you at all if you want to say "FRB didn't work as well as we wanted it to." OR "8m is improving despite its problems, and given the marginal gain of FRB it's not worth it to push it any harder." However, you are guys are seriously confusing me by denying the fundamental efficacy of the inherent purpose of FRB. It doesn't matter if shitty players also play deathball games on FRB because that says nothing about cutting edge competitive play. It's simply a fact that FRB offers greater opportunity for harassment and multi-engagements. Positional play, as this article outlines, is hard to achieve despite mythic-status mapping due to the game mechanics (or lack thereof), regardless of FRB or 8m. Because I know you are wondering if you should argue with me, I'll present it clearly here and save us one iteration if you still so choose to comment: It takes 4 bases in FRB to achieve the same "maximum" economy as in 8m -- which we call "maximum" and benchmark based on how many bases you need to max out your supply and reach late game tech, in an 8m game. (To digress briefly -- a 4th mining base has minimal utility in 8m because you decrease your army supply by adding more workers, and you gain nothing by spreading your workers to more expansions, unlike in BW which is what Lalush's thread was all about. If you're not going to fully saturate a base, it's not worth the liability of creating and defending it.) FRB doesn't change the mining dynamic at all, but it does require you to have more mining locations. By the time you have a 4th mining location, your main is almost done, so you really need 5 bases in FRB to be in full swing. This means you have 4 mining locations, at least 2 of which will be "out on the map", and all your infrastructure in your main which is also up for harass. This is 5 places where the enemy can damage you, compared to 3 places in the same "full swing" scenario in 8m. How is this not more opportunity for harassment? Interestingly, the increased number of location of vulnerabilities actually decreases the severity of the damage from successful harassment, because you have less eggs in any one location-basket. This means players are far more likely to suffer setbacks -- not lose the game -- in FRB. That's as far as I want to go. I could list many more observations and conjectures about how FRB promotes desirable game traits more than 8m, but that would be anecdotal and hypothetical. My intent was simply to rebut this notion that FRB is not doing it's job, when that is necessarily not true. ------- About highground, I don't think you can pin so much on this one mechanic, in terms of whether its existence would significantly alter how SC2 plays. In terms of the utility of ramps and height differences as part of a mapper's arsenal, it would certainly make a huge amount of difference in how we are able to reward map presence. It would be one step towards greater breadth, just like FRB is. ------- I hesitate to bring it up because the topic deserves a thorough treatment, but I don't want to leave it out. There are various factors centering around unit AI that lead to the discrepancy in breadth and engagement dynamics between SC2 and BW. SC2 unit AI being the way it is, you can only "recreate" BW so much. I'm not saying it should be one way or the other, but this piece of the puzzle should not be discounted, and it has deep ramifications on how the game works. High ground advantage and whatnot can only access so much potential for change. I guess my main point here is to warn you that you shouldn't think about adjustment goals as "more like BW" but instead as "a different kind of SC2". Needless to say, duh, but it bears repeating. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
By the time you have a 4th mining location, your main is almost done, so you really need 5 bases in FRB to be in full swing. This means you have 4 mining locations, at least 2 of which will be "out on the map", and all your infrastructure in your main which is also up for harass. This is 5 places where the enemy can damage you, compared to 3 places in the same "full swing" scenario in 8m. I have mentioned this before, too. To play well, your play needs to become more dynamic because your opponent is going to be more dynamic. Regardless, while I generally enjoy reading these articles, I can't help but get the sense that you are trying to find a new "silver bullet" that would fix SC2 gameplay. While I don't necessarily disagree that there needs to more use of ground level disparity, forward chokes, etc., I don't think you can simply pin any one aspect on "what's ruining SC2 gameplay as far as maps are concerned". I think you came really close to doing that with FRB -- I'm really unsure that there is another single aspect that is just going to make deathballing stop. Even with forward chokes, someone who has a large ground army is just going to figure out a different way to engage their deathball in those chokes. You can't force someone to do multipronged attacks, even if it might be better that they do. Deathballing happens -- should be a bumper sticker. | ||
| ||
